Thought chains 2

Preface 1.

I apologize to readers for whom the following arguments may seem little or completely incomprehensible. But, since I took up the compilation of thought chains, that is, to show how my views developed in a logical and temporal sequence, which led me to various “strange and unusual” conclusions about Temporal Waves, Superconsciousness, Telepathy, Genius, Paleothelepathy, then I have to stretch the entire thought chain without missing a single link, which, however, I will probably miss out on absent-mindedness.

Preface 2.

In 1907, Einstein, according to him, came up with the “happiest idea”, which later served as an incentive and basis for the creation of the General Theory of Relativity.
He suddenly realized that an observer in an elevator freely falling into the gravitational field of the Earth, and being completely isolated from any possibility of “looking out”, but equipped with any physical devices inside this elevator, would come to the conclusion that he was inside an inertial frame of reference, that is, a system moving uniformly and rectilinearly, while in fact his system – the elevator – is falling down with acceleration! Any physical experiments that this observer conducts inside the elevator will irrefutably prove that he is right!!!
This is how the famous Einstein Equivalence Principle was born for accelerated systems!

This conclusion is absolutely correct and we have all seen something similar on TV screens more than once, when we were given footage from an artificial Earth satellite in which spacers fly freely around the cabin. Why? Yes, because the satellite is FALLING FREELY (like an elevator) in the gravitational field of the Earth. But he “misses” all the time and does not hit the surface. If the Earth were flat, and at a great distance, sooner or later such a spacecraft would fall to the surface. But, fortunately, the Earth is ROUND and the satellite, flying around it at a speed of about 8 km / sec, still bends around it, “falling on it”, but not reaching the ground.

In 2000, about, maybe earlier, maybe a little later, I also came up with an interesting idea similar to Einstein’s:
If you put an observer on an electron, proton, or any nucleus, and the observer, of course, is “made” of the same substance as the particle he straddled, then no matter how it moves accelerating or slowing down in the electric and magnetic fields of accelerators, braking shockingly on targets, or in cosmic electromagnetic fields, he, the observer, will be absolutely sure that he is in an inertial system, namely, moving uniformly and rectilinearly.
This is nothing more than the same Principle of Einstein’s Equivalence, but applied to electromagnetic fields!

Hence the conclusion:
Solutions for the gravitational field in the General Theory of Relativity are quite applicable to electromagnetic phenomena! Of course, some additional hypotheses are necessary here, but they, in principle, DO NOT CHANGE ANYTHING in the main thing: All electrically charged or magnetic-field particles in ANY “external” fields, however strongly and rapidly varying in magnitude and direction, will, from the point of view of an “internal observer”, be inertial systems!
August 5th, 2018

On the applicability of the General Theory of Relativity to the phenomena of electromagnetism.
(An unscientific fantasy story about the Theory of Relativity)

                November 3, 2002

Introduction.

The most fundamental conclusion, which follows from the following article, has rather a philosophical and psychological, and not only a purely physical meaning: WHAT should be considered primary, the most general, and what is secondary, a particular of this common. Intuitively, it seems to us that our world of triads (proton – neutron – electron), consisting of atoms, molecules and their various compounds and combinations, “immersed” in our four-dimensional space-time continuum, is something primary, the most general, fundamental. And the curvature of this continuum by masses (a change in its metric), which we call gravity, is also the most general form of changing the curvature of space and the passage of time.
We consider the phenomena of electromagnetism as more specific, specific cases of interaction between bodies, bearing a certain local character of special cases, unrelated to the space-time continuum. But such an intuitive mental predisposition is only the result of everyday experience and logically has no advantages over any other initial, basic point of view. It’s just a matter of arbitrary choice of primary and secondary. Chronologically, our entire animal sensory experience has taken the space-time surrounding us for a kind of house in which the whole mystery of the living and inanimate material world is played out.
Electromagnetic phenomena began to be studied by science much later and “naturally”, like all the others, were included in the “particulars”, the details inside this “house”.
In this article, we will try to present a different approach to the fundamental question under discussion about what is common and private in the world around us.

Description of the problem.

One of the conclusions of the Special Theory of Relativity (SRT) is a noticeable increase in the mass of a moving body as its velocity “v” approaches the speed of light “c” in accordance with the Lorentz Transformation formula. This conclusion follows from paragraph §10 of the fundamental classical work of A.Einstein’s “On the electrodynamics of moving bodies” (1), when the Lorentz transformations are applied to a weakly accelerated electron. Paragraph §10 is called: “Dynamics of a (weakly accelerated) electron.” In numerous subsequent works by A. Einstein himself on SRT, this paragraph is given unchanged, as well as in all the works of other specialists devoted to this issue. (1,2,3,4,5.)

The addition of “weakly” is of key importance, because in his reasoning A. Einstein mentally divides the accelerated motion of an electron into a number of very small time (or spatial) segments, during each of which, the velocity of the electron changes so little that its movement (within the specified path / time segment) can be considered uniform and rectilinear. And this makes it legitimate in this example to use Lorentz transformations, since Lorentz transformations can only be applied to inertial systems.
Since we are talking about a “weakly accelerated” electron, it is not difficult to assume some fairly small segments of the path / time, during which no sufficiently sensitive devices can detect changes in the electron’s velocity either in magnitude or direction. Therefore, we have every right to consider its movement uniform and rectilinear within the boundaries, of course, of these small segments of the path / time. This technique, widely used and quite correct in mathematics (differential and integral calculus, variational analysis, etc.), starting with Zeno’s aporias, seems to us completely incorrect physically in general, and in this particular case in particular. The illegality of such a technique in physics and, in particular, in SRT is due, in our opinion, to the following reasons:

 1) In an accelerated frame of reference, the effect of “fictitious” inertia forces on a material body with a rest mass unequal to zero will never disappear, no matter how short spatio-temporal intervals we would break up its movement. Therefore, this accelerated frame of reference will not become an inertial frame of reference (ISO) for a single micro-nano-picosecond! And the conclusions of the SRT are applicable only to the latter (ISO).

2) The method of “splits” contradicts the correct definition of the concept of Inertial Reference Frame (ISO). The correct definition of ISO is “dynamic” in nature, namely, it is conditioned by the observance of Newton’s three laws in such a system. This is the main and primary part of the ISO definition. The secondary definition of ISO, which depends on the “dynamic” one, is “kinematic” in nature: any systems moving rectilinearly and uniformly relative to the above-defined ISO are also ISO!
By splitting, we implicitly want to “equalize the rights” of both parts of the ISO definition, which, generally speaking, is incorrect. You can take an infinite number of systems moving uniformly and rectilinearly relative to each other, but if all of them are connected to some kind of “big” system moving at an accelerated rate, then none of them will be ISO! (In this example, we do not consider the case of free fall of a “large” system in the gravity field). Once again, the “kinematic” definition of ISO cannot be fundamental, and this is exactly what the splitting technique boils down to. Not every system moving rectilinearly and uniformly relative to other systems can be qualified as ISO.

3) The logical incorrectness of the partitioning technique lies in the fact that the purely technical capabilities of our measuring instruments are equated with absolute, abstract mathematical concepts. When we say that “for a fairly short period of time, the accelerated movement of an electron can be considered as uniform and rectilinear,” we mean that the most sensitive devices will not detect a difference in the speeds or directions of the electron’s movement after this period of time. However, we are not talking about the fundamental undetectability of these changes (as stated, say, in the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle!). That is, in the partitioning technique, there is a kind of substitution of the concept of the resolution of devices with the concept of a fundamental, absolute impossibility to establish changes in the electron velocity.

4) A “weakly accelerated” or “strongly accelerated” electron does not play any role at all, because always by selecting appropriate, sufficiently small segments of the path / time, any arbitrarily fast alternating movement can be “reduced” to uniform over a small section of the path or in a small period of time. 

5) Splitting accelerated motion into many segments of the path / time with constant speed, while recognizing that in general this movement is accelerated, implies an instantaneous, abrupt change in speed at the boundary of the segments, i.e. infinitely large acceleration, which contradicts the spirit and letter of SRT.

6) And the last one. If we nevertheless assume the physical validity of such a step (splitting), then it will lead us back to the “twin paradox” in the SRT. The initial incorrect premise generates a paradoxical and incorrect conclusion. Indeed, if it is legitimate to “transform” theoretically, fundamentally, an accelerated frame of reference into ISO by partitioning, then we inevitably revive the “twin paradox” in SRT, because it is precisely built on the unlawful assumption of equivalence of ISO and a non-inertial frame of reference (NeISO) within SRT, applicable only to ISO! After all, if, in order to derive the laws of dynamics of an accelerated electron, we have the right to assume that by “splitting” we achieve the equivalence of ISO and non-ISO over a short period of time, then nothing prevents us from applying a similar technique to a twin moving with acceleration! The twin systems are becoming equivalent! And again – the same paradox!

Summarizing all the above, we come to the conclusion that formula (A) in SRT is derived on the basis of a completely incorrect assumption and that SRT does not have the right to predict an increase in mass using this formula at all! The paradox, however, lies in the fact that this “incorrect, illegitimate” conclusion, which the SRT “had no right” to predict, was confirmed in thousands of experiments and without taking into account this conclusion, it is impossible to correctly calculate any charged particle accelerator, mass spectrometer or any other device with relativistically moving particles! The truth of SRT has been proven many times in many experiments, including the famous formula E=mc2. The “mass defect” in nuclear reactions.

 Discussion 1.
This “paradox”, the “illegal” prediction of the SRT, which turned out to be correct, can be removed by accepting at least one of the following assumptions:

I) SRT incorrectly predicted the effect of mass increment with “v” tending to “c”, but purely by chance it coincided with experimental data.

II) SRT predicted this effect correctly and its conclusions apply not only to ISO, but also to NON-ISO. (in this case, the “twin paradox” is automatically revived, since ISO becomes equivalent to non-ISO).

III) SRT, using an incorrect technique, nevertheless correctly predicted the effect, because under certain conditions, the accelerated frame of reference can also be strictly recognized as inertial (as it happens in General Relativity)
Rejecting the first two assumptions as untenable, let us consider in more detail the third option in relation to accelerated charged particles.

Discussion 2. What does the Observer “consist” of?
Consider the behavior of an electron in any accelerator, for example, in a ring accelerator. In such an accelerator, an electron moves in a circular orbit of constant radius or in an unfolding spiral (cyclotron) and its movement cannot be called uniform and rectilinear in any way. It experiences both linear and tangential accelerations, and these accelerations are not constant. We will place two observers on such an electron: one of whom we will call “O”-an observer (Ordinary), and the other – “A”-an observer (Adequate)  The difference between them will become clear from further discussion. Both observers have at their disposal all the necessary instruments and instruments, on the basis of which they must determine whether their frame of reference is inertial or non-inertial.
To this question, the observer “O”, located on an accelerated electron, will answer:
“My frame of reference, with which I am rigidly connected, according to all the readings of the instruments and according to my feelings, is certainly a non-inertial frame of reference, because it is accelerating!”
Observer “A” will answer: “My system, of course, according to the readings of all my instruments and according to my feelings, is an inertial frame of reference!”
Why would two observers on the same accelerated electron give such different answers? The difference between them is what material they are “made of” (consist of) both observers. The observer “O” (Ordinary) consists of the ordinary matter of our triad world: proton-neutron-electron. The observer “A” (Adequate) is made of the substance of an electron with the same e/m ratio as the electron.  The observer “O” and his instruments (also from the triads) will experience the effect of fictitious inertia forces caused by the accelerated motion of the electron. Therefore, his conclusion will be correct in that he is in a non-inertial frame of reference (NeISO).
Observer “A” and its instruments consist of an electronic substance and they freely fall together with an electron in the electromagnetic fields of the accelerator. No fictitious inertia forces act on them. Therefore, observer “A” is also right in stating that he is in the ISO with the devices (Similar to an observer who was in an elevator freely falling in the gravitational field).
The question arises reasonably: Whose answer should be preferred, the observer’s “O” or the observer’s “A”? Which of them is still “more” right?
In our opinion, observer “A” is right. Why? But because in the “world of the electron” there are fundamentally no triads, atoms made of micro (protons-neutrons-electrons), and there cannot be. There, on the electron, there is only the “substance” of the electron, just as in the “proton world” there will be only proton matter, and in the “neutron world” – neutron, and the “nuclear world” – nuclear, and the “world of multicharged ions” – their and only matter.
Thus, we have come to the need to reconsider the concept of “observer”. Until now, we have used it, a priori assuming that any observer consists of the substance of our physical world, our Universe, of ordinary and familiar triads connected into an atom. Now we come to understand the fundamental importance of what the observer (and his instruments, of course) consists of. In principle, we cannot place our usual triadic observers on electrons, protons and ions, because there is simply no such substance in the “worlds of the mentioned particles”!

Discussion 3.               
So, we have come to an important conclusion: for an electron (and any other charged or magnetic particle (like a neutron)), any strongly or weakly accelerated motion caused by the influence of “external” electromagnetic fields will not differ in any way (from the point of view of an “internal” observer) from the free fall of a body in a gravitational field. This means that for such particles, their accelerations and decelerations due to electromagnetic fields, with any gradients and rapid changes, do not differ in any way from the movement of material bodies in gravitational fields. (Of course, assuming that the gradients of the external fields are incomparably spatially larger than the particle sizes! That is, we introduce the same Einstein Principle of Local Equivalence!) According to GRT, gravitational fields are nothing more than regions with a modified metric (as opposed to mass-free space), i.e. regions with geometrically curved space and slow-motion time.

Our reasoning leads us to the conclusion that for electrically charged particles or those with at least a magnetic field, electromagnetic fields are regions of a curved space-time continuum. 
That is, we have come to a complete analogy of the phenomena of electromagnetism and gravity.

Discussion 4 Gravity versus electromagnetism.
If we accept the assumption just made, it becomes necessary to clarify the differences between the nature of the action of gravitational and electromagnetic fields. Moreover, we must do this strictly adhering to the above assumption, i.e., give explanations to the phenomena of electromagnetism, using only the “language of General Relativity” about “space-time curvatures”.
In the case of gravity, we have such a curvature of space that free bodies approach each other. And time in the vicinity of gravitational masses, in areas with low gravitational potential, changes its course to a slower one. The lower the potential, the slower the passage of time.
Electromagnetic interactions are more diverse in nature than gravitational interactions.  For charges of the same name, regardless of the sign or for poles of the same name, repulsion is observed, for charges of different names or poles, attraction is observed. How can this be “translated” into the language of the curvature of space and the change in the course of time?
It seems reasonable to assume that there are two types of curvature of our space and two types of changes in the course of time. One kind of curvature of space in which free charges (poles) the other one also approaches (attracts), at which they move away from each other (repel).  Time, in the case of attraction, slows down, i.e. charges (poles), approaching each other, move from a region with a “fast” passage of time to a region with a slower passage of time. We are talking about the rate of time according to the clock located on these particles! When “repelling”, on the contrary, the charges (poles) move away from each other from the region with a faster passage of time to the region with a slower passage of time. Again! According to the clock, again, made of the same substance as the charges or poles indicated and located on these charges or poles.
In other words, we assume the presence of two types of curvature of geometric space and two types of changes in the course of time:
Attraction means that space is curved so that free charges (poles) they are getting closer, and time on them slows down as they get closer.
Repulsion means that space is curved so that free charges (poles) they move away from each other, and time flows most rapidly on them at the moment of their maximum convergence and slows down when they move away from each other.
If, as an example, we consider a certain electric charge and study its field by introducing test charges into it, then in the language of a curved space-time continuum this description will sound like this:
By introducing a test charge of the same name into the area of repulsively curved space, we not only work to overcome the repulsive curvature of space, but also to change the course of time on this charge from a slow (far away) to a faster one, close to the main charge. A clock on a trial charge (also made from the substance of this charge) will go slower when it is away from the main charge, whose field we are studying. And as the test charge of the same name approaches the studied one, the clock on it will go faster and faster (of course, the observer on it will not notice this, because there is nothing to compare it with, but if he sends time signals “out”, an external observer will detect this acceleration of time). The above examples can be popularly called “compression (acceleration) and stretching (deceleration)” of time.
Something else will happen to a test charge of different names: it will approach the main charge itself and its clock, as it approaches, will go slower and slower.      
Summarizing all the above at this stage, we can conclude that the gravitational interaction, as a form of manifestation of the curvature of the space-time continuum, is not the only manifestation of such a curvature. Moreover, gravity is only a special case of a more diverse pattern of changes in the curvature of space and changes in the course of time. Therefore, despite its universalism, gravity cannot claim to be the most general form of changing the metric of space and the passage of time.

Discussion 5.   
In connection with all of the above, a number of questions arise:
A) What should an observer consist of on multicharged ions – after all, they accelerate and change their mass, but they consist of protons, neutrons and electrons?
B) Since there are charges and poles of different names, they probably have to bend space and change the course of time in DIFFERENT WAYS!?

Answers:
To question A. The observer must have the same e/m as the substance of a multicharged ion or any other composite particle. This ion or particle can be considered as a material point – a charge carrier if the intensity of its internal electric field Inside is much greater than the intensity of the external field inside.  and the gradient of its inner field grad E inner is much greater than the gradient of the outer field grad E outer.  Under this condition, an ion or other charged particle interacts with an external field as a whole and all its parts (+ the observer on it) experience the same accelerations. Then the observer can consider his ISO system. If these conditions are violated, different parts of the particle gain different accelerations, the particle deforms and this system ceases to be ISO. Similar reasoning applies to magnetic fields.

To answer B.’s question, we assume that there are only two forms of space curvature and a change in the course of time in our physical space-time. One is the curvature of space causing the convergence of free charges (poles) and the slowing down of the passage of time on the approaching charges as they approach. The other is causing the separation of free charges and speeding up the passage of time on them, in case of their forced convergence.  Combination of the type: convergence of free charges of different names (poles) + acceleration of the passage of time on them and the separation of free charges of different names (poles) from each other + slowing down the passage of time on them seems unlikely to us.
However, we have not yet answered question B. After all, if the charges are of the same name, they should bend space and change the course of time in a uniform way, and if the charges are of different names, they should do it differently, in different ways, different from each other! In the above discussion, however, we are not talking about charges (poles) that bend space and change the course of time, but about their interaction. What, then, is the difference between the charges “plus and minus” and the poles – “north and south”? Which way do the charges bend our space and change the course of time? And in which direction do negative charges do the same trick with our space and time?  The ends do not meet! A possible answer to this question may be the assumption that electrically dissimilar charges and dissimilar poles bend NOT OUR physical space-time in different ways, but some other basic SUBSPACES.
Let’s say a certain “+ subspace” and “-subspace”. We call these curvatures electric charges (+ and –) and magnetic north-south poles in magnetic subspaces. 
Our physical space – time is only a four–dimensional contact surface of these subspaces – Electric and Magnetic, and orthogonal with respect to each other, and this already manifests itself in the form of a perpendicular vector of electric and magnetic stresses in our space.

Moreover, the deflection of these subspaces “in one direction”, i.e. what we call “charges of the same name or poles”, manifests itself in our physical space as the separation of free charged particles from each other and the acceleration of the passage of time (repulsion), if these particles are forced closer together.  The deflection of subspaces “in different directions” is fixed by us as opposite charges (poles) and their interaction manifests itself in our space as a convergence and slowing down of the passage of time (attraction). These deflections do not affect electrically and magnetically “neutral” particles, perhaps because usually such “neutral” particles are only electrically or magnetically balanced formations and opposite deflections are mutually compensated.
In our opinion, it is too early to say whether “our” geometry and “our” time exist in these supposed subspaces, because we know practically nothing about them. It is only possible that both geometry and time (in our understanding of these terms) are attributes only of our physical space–time, our 4-dimensional contact surface of the indicated subspaces.
In our space, these charge-pole deflections are ABSENT! The deflection of our space is manifested ONLY IN THE INTERACTION of one or different charges or magnetic poles!

At least one more question arises: how many types of “deflection” of our physical space does our hypothesis suggest: two – gravitational and electromagnetic, or more, including weak and nucleon interactions?  Since, since we have already started to come up with different “subspaces with their specific deflections,” then why bother with trifles, we will create two dozen more different subspaces and each will bend our space in its own way. It seems unlikely to us that our physical space “bends in different ways,” excluding those already mentioned. Apparently, the gravitational curvature of space and the change in the course of time are also some kind of derivative of the above-mentioned forms of (electromagnetic) curvature of space and changes in the course of time. It is due to some spatial imbalance of positive and negative charges: they are quantitatively equal, but their densities are not the same – negative charges are not concentrated in such a small volume as positive ones (electrons vs. protons).This density imbalance probably causes some kind of residual curvature of space–time, which we call gravity. Weak and nuclear interactions are very localized, they are concentrated in very small volumes of space and thus radically differ from gravitational and electromagnetic interactions. Perhaps that is why they represent interactions, strictly speaking, taking place, for the most part, not in our physical space. But the above reasoning is only pure speculation, that is, speculation.
In the wake of such “conjectures”, I will add that the strange behavior of electromagnetic waves (for example, the constancy of their velocity in any reference frame, regardless of the movement of the latter in space) suggests that they are “guests” in our geometric space-time continuum.They seem to be “witnesses” proving the hypothesis expressed earlier about the emergence of our four-dimensional continuum from the “contact” of electric and magnetic SUBSPACES.

In addition, if we accept the above hypothesis, it becomes clear that in many processes associated with an unequally accelerated change in the curvature of space and a change in the course of time, four–dimensional waves arise – three-dimensional in our space and one-dimensional in time, Temporal Waves, which, unlike ordinary waves in space, do NOT DISPERSE, but travel unchanged from from the past to the future and back.

Summary – the logical chain: 

The contradiction within SRT – The assumption of the applicability of SRT conclusions to accelerated moving charged particles – The fundamental importance of the question of “what the Observer consists of” – Equating accelerated moving charged particles under the influence of external electromagnetic fields to ISO – The spread of GRT positions to electric charges and magnetic poles – The interpretation of a variety of forms of curvature of space and changes in the course of time – The hypothesis of electric and magnetic orthogonal subspaces to each other and the representation of our physical space-time as a 4-dimensional contact surface of these orthogonal subspaces and, as a consequence of the above, the radiation of Temporal Waves.

And the hypothesis of Temporal Waves led to a whole series of other hypotheses, at first seemingly unrelated to it, which gradually began to merge from “parallel” “independent” ideas into something unified, into a chain – a system of interrelated ideas and concepts.

To be continued.
10 V 2019