Is Newtonian Mechanics an advantage or a limitation in astrophysics?

[DougF]

coldcreation

I stepped on an urchin. Ouch!!!

I hope it's not too bad, and can't wait to hear about your trip.

The short version will be fine! Don't want to hight jack this thread, :lol:

I do hope the Urchin was the worst part of it. :hihi:

[Hilton Ratcliffe]

Hi CC,

 

Welcome back. It's hard to believe that two weeks have flown by. I'm sure our long-suffering moderators will allow just a tiny little holiday report.

 

I look forward to reviving our discusion on the pros and cons of NM. By the way DougF, I really like your quote from Thoreau. My mission in life is to get people to read books. It's a tough job... :eek_big:

 

Best

Hilton

[coldcreation]

I hope it's not too bad, and can't wait to hear about your trip.

The short version will be fine! Don't want to hight jack this thread, :eek2:

I do hope the Urchin was the worst part of it. :eek_big:

 

Hello DougF, Hilton, Tormod, Pluto, Sanctus, Jay-qu,

 

Location: Mahe, Seychelles (capital: Victoria) (GoogleEarth it for arial views)

Lush tropical rain-forest, mostly impenetrable

65 beaches: Turquoise waters bordered by white finely ground coral sand beaches with granite boulders delimited by jungle-like vegetation and flanked by coral reefs on average 300 meters out.

 

Here are some photos I found on Internet (mine are not yet online):

 

Compare that to the same photographers Polynesie francaise photos:

 

Excuse the highjacking of this thread, but I await from Hilton, as I write, the answers to the questions of a previous post (i.e., I have time to kill).

 

Regards...

 

 

CC

[Pluto]

Hello coldcreation

 

Very nice.

 

I'm from the land of ozzzzzzzzzzzz.

Our thousands and thousands of islands are just as good.

 

 

But looking at new places and people is why we travel.

Your links are fantastic and the people are just so!!!!!!!!!!! nice.

[volantis]

I use classical physics (Newtonian mechanics) to figure out what it is I am looking at.

 

Hi Hilton,

 

Could you clarify a bit more on the definition of "Newtonian mechanics?" Are Newtonian mechanics restricted to the ideas presented by Isaac Newton, or do they continue to develop? For example, would you also include Charles Coulomb's electrostatic force law as part of Newtonian mechanics?

 

Dave

[Hilton Ratcliffe]

Hi everyone,

 

Welcome aboard, Volantis (Dave), great to hear from you. You will be able to add significantly to the value of this thread, so I hope you post regularly.

 

Volantis: Could you clarify a bit more on the definition of "Newtonian mechanics?" Are Newtonian mechanics restricted to the ideas presented by Isaac Newton, or do they continue to develop? For example, would you also include Charles Coulomb's electrostatic force law as part of Newtonian mechanics?

 

Hilton: We are slowly getting our terms of reference sorted out. Is it ok with everyone here that we use Newtonian Mechanics (NM) to encompass classical physics generally? If so, then I will use NM in that context in answering the questions. I don't think any of us is hung up on semantics.

 

 

I certainly do include Coulomb's law in my definition of classical physics, and indeed also Maxwell's equations of electromagnetism (Maxwell gives an excellent account of mechanical relativity in his book "Matter and Motion"). Classical physics by my definition is concerned with physical interactions in conventional Euclidean space of 3 dimensions, evolving from cause to effect along a separate axis of time, described geometrically by rigid Cartesian axes subject to Galilean transformations. Of course, the definition could be far more detailed than that, but I think we have the basis here.

 

Coldcreation, your last question is giving me grey hairs!

 

How did Newton's world model prevent all the mass from aglomerating in ther center of the celestial sphere?

 

This is a profound question. Firstly, I have no idea what Newton's world model was. It would almost certainly have been delineated in his theological writings somewhere, and I have not concerned myself with those. As far as his physics is concerned, no answer is given to this question that I know of. I could say that since we don't observe the collapse of matter in the universe towards a single dominant centre of gravity, there is no need to try to explain it. But that would be sidestepping the issue, and avoiding the problems I have with the laws of thermodynamics and conventional conceptions of entropy. It is however a crucial question, and thank you, CC, for asking it, although it just marginally goes beyond the essence of the title question of this thread, stretching astrophysics into the drunken realm of cosmology. We have had so many attempts to cope with this problem, expansion, rotation, creation of matter, creation of space, creation of pressure, dark magical stuff, etc etc.

 

Bottom line? I don't know. Any suggestions?

 

Best

Hilton

[Pluto]

Hello All

 

What stops all matter collecting at one spot.

 

Well

 

Think of it this way, If the universe is all and infinite in time,space and matter than infinity is the first hurdle.

 

If we look at the parts within the universe they do tend to collect and cluster as we see in stars, galaxies, cluster of galaxies and super clusters of clusters of galaxies.

 

Than what prevents most collecting at one spot. The process of recycling is the next hurdle preventing all up collection.

 

Example: This cluster of galaxies is 4.8Gyrs away.

 

Chandra :: Photo Album :: 3C438 :: 30 May 07

 

Image of a so called supermassive black hole ejecting matter in galactic volumn.

 

Image

Chandra :: Photo Album :: 3C438 :: More Images of 3C438

 

The Black Holes have extreme power to pull in matter and collect. They also have the quality of being a plasma body that is able to generate an internal vortex that is able to pump matter deep into space. Yes I know this is not main stream thought. But! this is the missing link that scientist have overseen, by assuming that the jets are created by infalling matter.

 

To this point no body knows, so: WHY NOT?

[volantis]

I certainly do include Coulomb's law in my definition of classical physics...

Thank you for the warm welcome, Hilton.

 

Would you agree that Newton's gravitational law quantifies the fundamental force of gravity, which is mediated by the dimension of mass? Also, would you agree that Coulomb's law specifically is an electrostatic force law, which is mediated by the dimension of charge?

 

As it is usually explained, there are four fundamental forces in nature. We are told they are the gravitational force, the electromagnetic force, the strong force, and the weak force. The weak force is really not a force at all, it is merely a non-dimensional value representing a magnitude (or more likely, a ratio).

 

If instead of relying on human perception of what the forces should be, and look at what nature has given us, wouldn't it be more appropriate to say that two of the fundamental forces, as revealed by the Newton and Coulomb force equations, are gravity and electrostatic force?

 

Einstein sought to unify "fields." A field is nothing more than the instantaneous range of a force. For example, even though the weight of a car is 1300 newtons at sea level, it weighs 31.6 newtons less at the top of Mt. Everest. At other distances from Earth, the car's force with regard to the Earth will vary accordingly. The range of gravitational force variation is the gravitational field.

 

So Einstein was actually trying to unify the forces.

 

Coulomb's electrostatic force law specifically applies to electrostatic charge, as is evidenced by his experimental setup. So if we have the gravitational force law and electrostatic force law, we are already halfway to quantifying the fundamental forces with Newtonian physics. Would you agree?

 

Dave

[coldcreation]

...

 

Coldcreation, your last question is giving me grey hairs!

 

 

How did Newton's world model prevent all the mass from aglomerating in ther center of the celestial sphere?

 

 

This is a profound question. Firstly, I have no idea what Newton's world model was. It would almost certainly have been delineated in his theological writings somewhere, and I have not concerned myself with those. As far as his physics is concerned, no answer is given to this question that I know of. I could say that since we don't observe the collapse of matter in the universe towards a single dominant centre of gravity, there is no need to try to explain it. But that would be sidestepping the issue, and avoiding the problems I have with the laws of thermodynamics and conventional conceptions of entropy. It is however a crucial question, and thank you, CC, for asking it, although it just marginally goes beyond the essence of the title question of this thread, stretching astrophysics into the drunken realm of cosmology. We have had so many attempts to cope with this problem, expansion, rotation, creation of matter, creation of space, creation of pressure, dark magical stuff, etc etc.

 

Bottom line? I don't know. Any suggestions?

 

Best

Hilton

 

Let's just say that according to Newtonian theory of gravity, all the mass in the universe (being attractive gravitationally) should aglomerate in the center of the celestial sphere (to use the expression of the times).

 

It is my understanding that Einstein's curved spacetime approach to gravity (rather than an attractive force) did little to eliminate the problem. That is one of the reasons he introduced lambda.

 

But even with lambda the universe seemed unstable.

 

That was the short (and so inexact) version.

 

Question then: How could anyone today possibly articulate that the universe is nonexpanding?

 

Are you Hilton claiming the universe is static? And if so, how can that be, since both Newtonian and Einsteinian theory do not allow it?

 

Sorry if I can't stick solely to the astrophysical advantage or a limitation to Newtonian mechanics. The fact is, Newtonian mechanics is not restricted to the astrophysical. But I understand if you do not want to spead the subject to thinly.

 

 

 

 

 

CC

[Hilton Ratcliffe]

Hi Dave,

 

Thank you for your post and questions. I am intrigued by them and wonder where this is leading us. I suppose the only way to find out is to answer them as best I can and see what happens. :hyper:

 

Would you agree that Newton's gravitational law quantifies the fundamental force of gravity, which is mediated by the dimension of mass? Also, would you agree that Coulomb's law specifically is an electrostatic force law, which is mediated by the dimension of charge?

 

Yes and yes.

 

The weak force is really not a force at all, it is merely a non-dimensional value representing a magnitude (or more likely, a ratio).

 

I know that subatomic quantum physics is your field of expertise (it is most definitely not mine :)), and accept your authority in making this statement, but surely it is in fact a force that is represented that way mathematically, ie as a dimensionless number?

 

If instead of relying on human perception of what the forces should be, and look at what nature has given us, wouldn't it be more appropriate to say that two of the fundamental forces, as revealed by the Newton and Coulomb force equations, are gravity and electrostatic force?

 

I don't really understand this. We are discussing the merits of NM in observational astrophysics, and forces become apparent to us as effects in our observed environment. Newton and Coulomb gave quantitative evaluations of perceived phenomena. We agree or disagree depending on whether we see things the same way, either directly or by inference.

 

Einstein sought to unify "fields." A field is nothing more than the instantaneous range of a force. For example, even though the weight of a car is 1300 newtons at sea level, it weighs 31.6 newtons less at the top of Mt. Everest. At other distances from Earth, the car's force with regard to the Earth will vary accordingly. The range of gravitational force variation is the gravitational field.

So Einstein was actually trying to unify the forces.

 

Einstein was trying to unify gravitation and electrostatic forces? My Relativity is admittedly a bit rusty from lying idle, but I don't recall that in any of Einstein's writings. Nevertheless, I find the argument interesting, although I wonder how it copes with polarity. Aside: I think that the accuracy of Relativity emerges from its treatment of gravitation as a single body phenomenon, whereas Newton goes the n-body route. But that's thinking aloud.

 

Coulomb's electrostatic force law specifically applies to electrostatic charge, as is evidenced by his experimental setup. So if we have the gravitational force law and electrostatic force law, we are already halfway to quantifying the fundamental forces with Newtonian physics. Would you agree?

 

Yes I do. I can't wait to see where this is going...

 

Best

Hilton

[Hilton Ratcliffe]

Hi CC,

 

It's good to have you back on the forum, even if you now walk with a limp... :)

 

Let's just say that according to Newtonian theory of gravity, all the mass in the universe (being attractive gravitationally) should aglomerate in the center of the celestial sphere (to use the expression of the times).

 

Yes, that is clearly what one would expect it to do. However, if it did do that, we would have some major problems with physics. We would reverse both the thermodynamic imperative towards lower equilibrium temperature, and that towards greater entropy, where entropy is understood to be a more particulate condition. There appears to be something missing in Newton's vision on the really big scale (as there appears to be on the very small) or at least in our understanding of it. I already concede that point in my use of MOND to callibrate galaxy and cluster rotations. Consider perhaps that structure continues to become bigger and bigger infinitely, with each larger gravitational unit becoming an atom in the next, even bigger one. But that's conjecture.

 

Question then: How could anyone today possibly articulate that the universe is nonexpanding? Are you Hilton claiming the universe is static? And if so, how can that be, since both Newtonian and Einsteinian theory do not allow it?

 

I claim that it is apparently static. As far as I can see and measure, the known universe is not doing anything coherently as a whole, apart from existing. To turn your question around, how could anyone today claim that the Universe is holistically expanding? By what physics? In order to get that wild idea to work, we would have to invent something as physically ludicrous as Big Bang theory or some such other thumb-suck solution. Or invoke Theos. My position is simple: The Universe does not appear to be holistically expanding or contracting, and the condition it finds itself in depends in no way whatsoever on my explanation, given or implied. As an empiricist, I weight measurement over theory, and that only works for as far as I can see. Maybe my eyesight is not 20/20, but it is way more realistic than my imagination. :hyper:

 

Sorry if I can't stick solely to the astrophysical advantage or a limitation to Newtonian mechanics. The fact is, Newtonian mechanics is not restricted to the astrophysical. But I understand if you do not want to spead the subject to thinly.

 

Thank you for your understanding and ongoing important and interesting input. Would you like me send the pdf of Adrews' paper to your email box?

 

Best

 

Hilton the "See Urchin"

[volantis]

surely it is in fact a force that is represented that way mathematically, ie as a dimensionless number?

Actually, it is not. The weak "force" is correctly called the weak "interaction" by knowledgeable physicists. It is loosely called a force because this weak interaction is associated with beta decay in neutrons. Since the neutrons decay into a proton and electron, it is assumed that a force caused the decay. But no such force is ever quantified in the sense of mass times acceleration or charge times electric field strength.

 

If instead of relying on human perception of what the forces should be, and look at what nature has given us, wouldn't it be more appropriate to say that two of the fundamental forces, as revealed by the Newton and Coulomb force equations, are gravity and electrostatic force?

I don't really understand this.

Newtonian mechanics are derived from observational physics. By measuring the mass of various objects and observing their behavior, Newton was able to derive the gravitational force law. Similarly, Coulomb took measurements of electrostatic charges and derived the electrostatic force law.

 

Modern physics considers the forces to be gravity and electromagnetism, as opposed to gravity and electrostatic force. Electromagnetism is not what Coulomb's law quantifies. Coulomb's law specifically quantifies the electrostatic force. Therefore, two of the fundamental forces should be gravity and electrostatic force, not gravity and electromagnetism.

 

Einstein was trying to unify gravitation and electrostatic forces?

In the latter part of his life he was trying to unify the fields. The fields are fields of force. So yes, he was trying to unify gravity, electrostatic force, strong force, and the weak interaction.

 

Yes I do. I can't wait to see where this is going...

If there is any pattern to the Universe, and Newtonian physics have already quantified two of the force laws, then it seems likely the strong force would also have a Newtonian expression.

 

Before I show a Newtonian expression for the strong force, I would like to discuss it for a moment. The strong force refers to the strong nuclear force. It is the force that binds protons and neutrons. In the Standard Model, the electron is assumed to not be affected by the strong force, but I can show that it is. There are other forces, but oddly, they are not considered to be separate from the four fundamental forces. There is also magnetism, Casimir, and Van der Waals forces. I propose the strong nuclear force, magnetism, the Casimir force, and Van der Waals force are all different manifestations of the same force. They are different manifestations based upon the subatomic particle they act on and the scale of existence they pertain to. For example, the Casimir force is the strong force of the electron. The strong nuclear force exists among protons and neutrons. Permanent magnetism arises when the magnetic properties of protons and neutrons are more or less similarly aligned. The Van der Waals force is the net magnetic force of atoms and molecules working on the net magnetic force of other atoms and molecules.

 

If the above is correct, then a single property would mediate all these forces. This single property is what I call "strong charge."

 

How can this be quantified? Each force law has its own constant. For the electrostatic force law, the constant of proportionality is Coulomb's constant. I have found that the strong force constant of proportionality is equal to Coulomb's constant times 16pi^2. I have found that Coulomb's constant mediates spherical geometry while the strong force constant mediates a double loxodrome geometry. 16pi^2 is the double loxodrome solid angle constant. It turns out this strong force constant is also a quantification of a quantum unit of space-time. For lack of a better word, I call the quantized space-time, "Aether" and notate it as A.u.

 

It also turns out that Coulomb's constant is equal to the speed of light times a conductance constant times the permeability constant divided by the permittivity constant:

 

k.c = c * Cd * u.0 / e.0

 

The conductance constant contributes to the property of strong charge such that the angular momentum of the subatomic particle times the conductance constant is equal to the strong charge. Planck's constant (h) is the angular momentum of the electron so:

 

h * Cd = e.emax^2

 

The strong force law for the electron would then be:

 

A.u * e.emax * e.emax / distance^2 = strong force

 

It turns out that there is a quantum distance, which is equal to the Compton wavelength. If we take the special case of the strong force of two electrons acting upon each other at the Compton wavelength squared we get the Casimir force equation:

 

A.u * e.emax^2 / w.C^2 = (pi * h * c) / (480 * w.C^2)

 

Actually, the two sides are off by about 3%. But an experiment by Steven Lamoreaux measured the Casimir effect to within 5% of the predicted value, so the strong force equation of the electron could be correct.

 

We can extend this process to the proton and neutron to predict the strong charge values for them, as well. It turns out that the proportion of the electrostatic charge to the strong charge gives us the weak interaction, or weak "force."

 

This Newtonian quantification of the strong force has value for astronomers, too, which is what I really would like to discuss later on. I'm not an astronomer, so I could use some help in understanding what this theory predicts. For the moment, however, I would be interested in any thoughts about this Newtonian strong force quantification.

[volantis]

A.u * e.emax^2 / w.C^2 = (pi * h * c) / (480 * w.C^2)

Typo! That should be:

 

A.u * e.emax^2 / w.C^2 = (pi * h * c) / (480 * w.C^4)

[Hilton Ratcliffe]

Hi Dave,

 

Thank you for your further contributions to this thread. I have taken some time to respond because I needed to think about it carefully, and also wanted to digest some of your paper "A New Foundation for Physics" to get a better handle on the Aether Physics Model.

 

My considered opinion is that it is a theory in quantum physics, and consequently feel that this is not the correct forum in which to present your arguments. Attempting to unite physics across the quantum divide is a noble calling. There remain some daunting problems however, not the least of which are the role of mathematics and the geometry of space.

 

We have defined Newtonian Mechanics for the purposes of this thread, and agreed that the term be taken as representing classical (as opposed to quantum) physics generally. The title question of this thread and the introductory post stipulate the parameters within which our enquiry should proceed. This does not imply that this is only way to conduct science, it merely constrains this discussion.

 

Dave, in my opinion, weak as it may be in subatomic quantum matters, your thesis deserves to be heard, and more importantly, should be fairly and competently tested. I have two suggestions: Firstly, start a Hypography thread where you can explain and explore your theory in its proper context; and secondly, start a dialogue with Christian Jooss, an ACG member and high energy physicist at the University of Goettingen. He is a physicist with extraordinary vision. I will email you his address. I will also send you the call for papers for CCC2.

 

Thanks again for your contributions and for alerting me to your angle on particle physics.

 

Best

Hilton

[volantis]

My considered opinion is that it is a theory in quantum physics, and consequently feel that this is not the correct forum in which to present your arguments.

If it is your belief that understanding the fundamental forces has no place in astronomy, then there is nothing more to say.

 

Dave

[Hilton Ratcliffe]

Hi Dave,

 

I do not say that understanding fundamental forces has no place in astronomy, and I am puzzled that you could have read that into my statement. It is simply not the theme of this discussion. To reiterate, the presentation of your thesis does not fall within the intended boundaries of this thread. Nevertheless, it is a compelling and reasonable line of thought, and deserves its own thread.

 

It was certainly not my intention to offend you, and apologise if I did. I hope that you will still contribute to this discussion on the use of classical physics in astronomy.

 

Best

Hilton

[coldcreation]

...

 

I claim that it is apparently static. As far as I can see and measure, the known universe is not doing anything coherently as a whole, apart from existing. To turn your question around, how could anyone today claim that the Universe is holistically expanding? By what physics? In order to get that wild idea to work, we would have to invent something as physically ludicrous as Big Bang theory or some such other thumb-suck solution. Or invoke Theos. My position is simple: The Universe does not appear to be holistically expanding or contracting, and the condition it finds itself in depends in no way whatsoever on my explanation, given or implied. As an empiricist, I weight measurement over theory, and that only works for as far as I can see. Maybe my eyesight is not 20/20, but it is way more realistic than my imagination. :)

 

Thanks for this.

 

Thank you for your understanding and ongoing important and interesting input. Would you like me send the pdf of Adrews' paper to your email box?

 

Best

 

Hilton the "See Urchin"

 

Yes. I would be very interested in reading Andrews' paper. Please pdf-me.

 

CC