Preface 1.

I apologize to the readers for whom the following arguments may seem little or completely incomprehensible. But once I set about compiling thought chains, that is, showing how my views developed in a logical and temporal sequence that led me to various “strange and unusual” conclusions about Temporal Waves, Superconsciousness, Telepathy, Genius, and Paleotelepathy, I have to stretch the entire thought chain without missing a single link. which, however, I’ll probably miss in my absent-mindedness.

Preface 2.

In 1907, Einstein, according to him, came up with the “happiest idea”, which later served as an incentive and the basis for the creation of the General Theory of Relativity.

He suddenly realized that an observer in an elevator falling freely in 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 reference frame, that is, a system moving uniformly and rectilinearly, while in fact his system – the elevator – is falling downwards with acceleration! Any physical experiments conducted by this observer 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 satellite of the Earth, 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 it “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 earth.

In 2000, around, 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 straddles, then no matter how it moves, accelerating or decelerating 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:

The solutions for the gravitational field in the General Theory of Relativity are quite applicable to electromagnetic phenomena! Of course, some additional hypotheses are needed here, but they, in principle, DO NOT CHANGE ANYTHING in the main point: All electrically charged or magnetically charged particles in ANY “external” fields, however strongly and rapidly varying in magnitude and direction, will be, from the point of view of an “internal observer”, 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 that follows from the following article has a philosophical and psychological rather than 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, having a certain local character of special cases, which are in no way connected with 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 mistaken 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 “The 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 electron’s velocity changes so little that its movement (within the specified length of the path / time) can be considered uniform and rectilinear. And this makes it legitimate to use Lorentz transformations in this example, 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 certain rather small travel/time segments, during which no sufficiently sensitive instruments can detect changes in the electron’s velocity either in magnitude or direction. Therefore, we have every right to consider its movement to be uniform and rectilinear within the boundaries, of course, of these small segments of the path/ time. This technique, which is widely used and quite correct in mathematics (differential and integral calculus, variational analysis, etc.), starting with Zeno’s aporias, seems to us to be 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” inertial forces on a material body with a rest mass unequal to zero will never disappear, no matter how short space-time intervals we break up its motion. Therefore, this accelerated frame of reference will not become an inertial reference system (ISO) for a single micro-nano-picosecond! And the conclusions of the SRT apply only to the latter (ISO).

2) The use of “splits” contradicts the correct definition of the concept of an Inertial Reference System (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” definition, is “kinematic” in nature: any systems moving rectilinearly and uniformly relative to the above-defined ISO are also ISO!

By partitioning, we implicitly want to “equalize” 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 a 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 partitioning technique boils down to. Not every system moving rectilinearly and uniformly relative to other systems can be qualified as an ISO.

3) The logical incorrectness of the partitioning method lies in the fact that the purely technical capabilities of our measuring instruments are equated to 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 instruments 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, it is as if the concept of the resolution of devices is being replaced by the concept of the fundamental, absolute impossibility of determining changes in the electron velocity.

4) A “weakly accelerated” or “strongly accelerated” electron does not play any role at all, because by always 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 short period of time.

5) Splitting accelerated motion into multiple path/time segments with a constant speed, while recognizing that this movement is accelerated in general, 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 the 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” a theoretically, fundamentally accelerated frame of reference into an ISO by partitioning, then we inevitably revive the “twin paradox” in SRT, because it is precisely based on the unlawful assumption of the equivalence of ISO and a non-inertial frame of reference (NeISO) within the SRT framework applicable only to ISO! After all, if, in order to deduce the laws of dynamics of an accelerated electron, we can assume that by “splitting” we achieve 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 gemini systems are becoming equivalent! And again – the same paradox!

Summarizing all of 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 has no right at all to predict weight gain using this formula! The paradox, however, is that this “incorrect, illegitimate” conclusion, which the SRT “had no right” to predict, has been confirmed in thousands of experiments, and without taking this conclusion into account, no charged particle accelerator, mass spectrometer, or any other device with relativistically moving particles can be correctly calculated! 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) The SRT incorrectly predicted the effect of mass increment with “v” tending to “c”, but purely by chance it coincided with experimental data.

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

Let’s 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. It experiences both linear and tangential accelerations, and these accelerations are not constant. Let us 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 the accelerated electron, will answer:

“My frame of reference, to which I am rigidly connected, is certainly a non-inertial frame of reference, according to all instrument readings and according to my feelings, because it is accelerating!”

Observer “A” will answer: “My system, of course, according to 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 kind of 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 the fact that he is in a non-inertial frame of reference (NeISO).

The observer “A” and its instruments consist of electronic matter 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 instruments (Similar to an observer who was in an elevator freely falling in the gravitational field).

The question reasonably arises: Whose answer should be preferred, the “O” of the observer or the “A” of the observer? Which of them is “more” right?

In our opinion, observer “A” is right. Why? But because in the “world of the electron” there are basically no triads, atoms from 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 in the “nuclear world” – nuclear, and in the “world of multiply charged ions” – their and only matter.

Thus, we have come to the need to reconsider the concept of “observer”. Until now, we have been using it, a priori assuming that any observer consists of the substance of our physical world, our universe, and the usual 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-field-possessing (like a neutron) particle), any strongly or slightly accelerated motion caused by the action 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 caused by electromagnetic fields, with any gradients and rapid changes, do not differ in any way from the motion of material bodies in gravitational fields. (Of course, provided that the gradients of the external fields are incomparably spatially larger than the particle sizes! That is, we are introducing the same Einstein’s Principle of Local Equivalence!) According to general relativity, 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.

In other words, 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, then 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-mentioned assumption, i.e., to explain the phenomena of electromagnetism, using only the “language of General Relativity” about “space-time curvature.”

In the case of gravity, we have such a curvature of space that free bodies approach each other. And time near gravitating 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, and 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 changing 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 type of curvature of space in which free charges (poles) one approaches (attracts) and the other, at which they move away from each other (repels). In the case of attraction, time 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! In case of “repulsion”, 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 indicated charges or poles and located on these charges or poles.

In other words, we assume that there are 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 get closer, and the 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 on them flows most quickly 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 adding test charges to 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 region of a repulsively curved space, we are not only working to overcome the repulsive curvature of space, but also to change the course of time on this charge from a slow one (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 run 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 one being studied, the clock on it will go faster and faster (of course, the observer on it will not notice this, since there is nothing to compare it with, but if it sends time signals “outside”, 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 move closer to the main charge itself, and its clock will go slower as it gets closer.

Summarizing all of the above at this stage, we can conclude that 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 passage 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 multiply charged ions – after all, they accelerate and change their mass, but they consist of protons, neutrons and electrons?

B) Since there are different-named charges and poles, they must probably 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 multiply charged 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 E inside is much greater than the intensity of the external field E outside. and the gradient of its internal field grad E ext. is much greater than the gradient of the external field grad E ext. Under this condition, an ion or other charged particle interacts with an external field as a single whole and all its parts (+ the observer located on it) experience the same accelerations. Then the observer can consider his ISO system. If these conditions are violated, different parts of the particle acquire different accelerations, the particle deforms and this system ceases to be an ISO. Similar reasoning applies to magnetic fields.

In answer to question B., we assume that there are only two forms of space-warping and time-reversal in our physical space-time. One is the curvature of space causing the free charges (poles) to converge and the slowing down of time on the approaching charges as they approach. The other is causing the free charges to move away and speed up the passage of time on them, in the event 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 dissimilar charges (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 “plus and minus” charges and the “north and south” poles? Which way do these charges bend our space and change the course of time? And in which direction minus the charges do the same trick with our space and time? The ends don’t add up! 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 in magnetic subspaces magnetic north-south poles.

Our physical space – time is only a four–dimensional contact surface of these subspaces – Electric and Magnetic, and orthogonal to each other, and this is already manifested in the form of perpendicular vectors of electric and magnetic strengths in our space.

Moreover, the deflection of these subspaces “to one side”, i.e., what we call “charges of the same name or poles”, manifests itself in our physical space as free charged particles move away from each other and accelerate the passage of time (repulsion) if these particles are forced closer. The deflection of subspaces “in different directions” is recorded by us as charges of different names (poles) and their interaction manifests itself in our space as convergence and slowing down of time (attraction). Electrically and magnetically “neutral” particles are not affected by these deflections, possibly because usually such “neutral” particles are only electrically or magnetically balanced formations and the 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, since 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 these 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 named 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 we’ve already started inventing different “subspaces with their specific bends,” then why waste time, we’ll create two dozen more different subspaces and each one 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 (electromagnetic) curvature of space and changes in the course of time. It is caused by a certain 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 may cause 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’s why they represent interactions that, strictly speaking, take place, for the most part, not in our physical space. But the above reasoning is just pure speculation, that is, speculation.

In the wake of such “speculation”, 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 previously stated hypothesis about the emergence of our four-dimensional continuum from the “contact” of electric and magnetic SUBSPACES.
 

In addition, if we accept the hypothesis described above, it becomes clear that in many processes associated with an unequally accelerated change in the curvature of space and changes 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 is 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 extension of GRT positions to electric charges and magnetic poles — The interpretation of a variety of forms of space curvature 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 emission 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