EntranceThis digital physical world. Andrey Grishaev - This “digital” physical world
Great
Grade 5 out of 5 stars by Guest 04.11.2018 04:05
Just go crazy! I would like to know what kind of person this author is. It feels like a smart person, he wrote everything down clearly and in detail. I am sure that the author is mistaken on many points. For example, it physically cannot be that the Moon revolves around the Earth, and the Earth itself would make a response oscillation along only one line along the trajectory in orbit around the Sun. What are you, elementary mechanics! Wikipedia describes in detail how the Earth and the moon rotate around each other, the center of gravity is several thousand kilometers from the center of the Earth. Naturally, the Earth rotates around its center of mass. It cannot be otherwise, purely physically. Even if the lunar matter were attracted to the Earth, and the Earth's matter were not attracted to the moon, the rotation of the Moon and the Earth would still be around the Barrycenter. For example, at the center of the Earth, something that creates all of Earth's gravity attracts the moon. In this case, the moon will pull this “something” for exactly the same amount of time, so it is impossible to even distinguish such an attraction from the classical attraction of everything. There would be no tides, but there would still be rotation around the barycenter! Further, here someone close-minded writes, they say, the tides from the sun should really be greater than from the moon, because... The gravitational field of the sun is greater than that of the moon (on earth). The field itself, uniform, will not cause tides!!! (I’m writing this in a simplified way). For tides the field must be gradient! From the sun the gradient is almost zero, from the moon it is noticeable. Because different parts of the earth are at different distances from the moon - the tides depend on this. And for the sun, these thousands of kilometers are a drop in the ocean, almost everything is evenly distributed. So people, think about it. The world is very, very complex, determine correctly what can be simplified and what cannot, the author actually said - “people, all science is nonsense, the world was created by God (program) and period.” From such a point of view, you can explain and challenge anything at all - that’s the program, you see! I praised the book for its presentation, but there is a subtle mix of facts, truth and fairy tales. So, it's kind of fucked up. People, understanding the theory of relativity is not easy, but it is possible. I've seen a lot of videos where they try to show that a hundred and that don't work - almost all of these videos are from stupid people, the arguments are one-sided and superficial. Well, why try to make something popular and accessible to everyone out of such a difficult law of nature for people to understand! You really need to immerse yourself in studying the issue in order to understand all this at least a little! I checked the calculations using GPS satellites, everything fits! Relativistic time dilation on them is 7.2 ISS per day relative to the clock on the earth base! 232 ISS per day relative to a hypothetical stationary base relative to the sun! Because the earth flies in orbit around the sun at 30 km/s. And now, pay attention, the lag of the satellite’s clock relative to the sun is 239.2 ISS per day! And if we add 232 and 7.2, we get the same 239.2! Everything fits perfectly! Further, the lag of the sundial relative to the stationary one in the middle of our galaxy (after all, the sun flies around the black hole at about 200 km/s) is many milliseconds per day, and if you calculate the lag of the earth's clock, the clock of the satellites, calculate separately relative to whatever you want and directly with each other Compare this watch with a friend - everything also agrees! You need to be able to add speeds correctly, I’ve been racking my brain for a month now and it’s not just that I came across this material and this line of commentary because I can’t remain silent on this topic, I want to understand it as it actually is according to modern data and I can’t figure it out thoroughly, I have to delve into it slowly. Few people understand this at all, the literature is scanty, and an intelligent “teacher” cannot be found.
Grade 4 out of 5 stars from Sergey 10/02/2018 21:00
I read the whole book. The book is very interesting. I advise you to read it for those who are interested in physics and the structure of the world.
But it’s hard to read, maybe because there are not enough pictures explaining some experiments (for example, in sections 4 and 5).
The model, with my level of knowledge (technical university), in my opinion, very well describes and clarifies some experiences and phenomena (for example, tides, etc.).
In law universal gravity There should be solar and lunar ebbs and flows, and the solar tides are much greater, which does not fit into reality a little.
Once again I was convinced that physics is an experimental, experimental and interesting science. There is no point in wasting time memorizing physical laws; it is orders of magnitude better to observe them in action in experiments.
It is very bad when the results of these experiments are hushed up or adjusted to fit accepted theoretical doctrines.
I hope that I will come across many more interesting materials on this topic.
Good luck and inspiration to all new physicists!!! Enlightenment orthodoxies to all!!!
Grade 5 out of 5 stars by Knigochit 02/19/2018 20:47
The book and films are very interesting.
And hardly among the representatives official science(academics, etc.) there will be those who can also publicly refute this point of view or confirm it (or at least comment on it) and it’s clear why.
So:
"...The physical world in which we live is not self-sufficient. Physical reality exists thanks to the supra-physical reality. Thanks to the software of the physical world. Particles of matter are formed by programs and the options for interactions in which particles can participate are programmed. Gravity is generated not by masses, but by electromagnetic phenomena are not charges. Programs control matter. That is why in the world there are physical laws, and chaos and arbitrariness do not reign..."
Grade 5 out of 5 stars by Anatoly 10.24.2017 17:36
I was once again convinced that not everything is so simple in the world and school does not provide everything. necessary knowledge, and in general humanity is going somewhere in the wrong direction, the author should think about who is leading humanity and who is performing that huge performance called life. I have long been accustomed to not trusting anyone, BUT the author has a number of comments that raise questions about where the truth is. In any case, this creation is better than gum, house 2 and other flood in the information field of the planet.
Grade 5 out of 5 stars by Prutogib 09.20.2017 12:43
I don’t even know what to say... This is just the schizophasia of a sick person suffering from conspiracy theories. He should call the doctors.
Grade 1 out of 5 stars from Ilya 05/28/2017 04:01
Grade 5 out of 5 stars from Andrey 08/06/2016 08:37
My knowledge is only enough to estimate quantum mechanics, but I can say that this is the first time I have encountered so much anti-scientific nonsense in one place.
Grade 1 out of 5 stars from Dmitry 06/08/2016 11:47
Pure scientific frivolity.
Grade 1 out of 5 stars from Denis 04/07/2016 02:07
Regarding the lack of gravity near asteroids, it’s a blizzard, apparently, 99%.
Regarding the deflection of star light by the sun's corona, and not by gravity - probably.
Regarding the incorrectness of the law of universal gravitation - a clinic, and the author (or authors)
understand this well.
Gives the impression of a well-thought-out zombie message for the suckers, or
, on the contrary, deliberately discriminating against SRT opponents is a method of creating an image
according to the methods of Pocheptsov’s communication theory.
Grade 3 out of 5 stars from Vasek 02/14/2015 17:06
And I liked it. I give it a 5
My knowledge is no longer even at the vocational school level, I would like to know: so, the radius of the gravitational field of the moon is less than calculated? And even 5 times smaller? Did the Americans stomp on the moon or not?
And most importantly, how much does ours weigh? motherland?
What struck me was not the book, but the scope of imagination in logical consequences from false premises. The author is a phenomenal erudite in many areas of physics and chemistry, including. How subtly he links what is desired with reality through simplification. And all this not only through verbal and philosophical statements with the richest elaboration (you can feel it - I didn’t sleep at night), but also armed with school mathematics. I even had to review the results of experiments from Basov’s laboratory. Of course, the fiction described by the author was not there. Everything is within the framework of Maxwell's equations. But, alas, this is no longer school mathematics. Maxwell's equations are written down from direct and indisputable experiments and, by the way, STR is simply stupidly a direct and only recording of the results of simple and indisputable experiments. And, which is typical, if STR were incorrect, then Maxwell’s equations would have a completely different form. It's simple, stupid, MATH. If it were not for SRT, for example, then the astronaut, without looking out of the ship, would immediately understand that he is not at rest, but flying. Mathematical logic, in contrast to verbal logic with the occasional involvement of school mathematics, squeezes researchers into such a rigid framework of explanation to explain Experimental data that the result may, unfortunately, be what official science provides.
“The language of truth is simple.”
Seneca the Younger1.1. What are we talking about, exactly?
In the history of medicine there was such a clinical case.
« Until about the mid-19th century, maternity fever was rampant in obstetric clinics in Europe. In some years, it claimed up to 30 percent or more of the lives of mothers who gave birth in these clinics. Women preferred to give birth on trains and on the streets, rather than end up in a hospital, and when they went there, they said goodbye to their families as if they were going to the chopping block. It was believed that this disease was epidemic in nature; there were about 30 theories of its origin. It was associated with changes in the state of the atmosphere, and with soil changes, and with the location of the clinics, and they tried to treat everything, including the use of laxatives. Autopsies always showed the same picture: death was due to blood poisoning.
F. Pachner gives the following figures: “...over 60 years in Prussia alone, 363,624 women in labor died from maternity fever, i.e. more than during the same time from smallpox and cholera combined... Mortality rate of 10% was considered quite normal, in other words, out of 100 women giving birth, 10 died from puerperal fever..." Of all the diseases exposed at that time statistical analysis, puerperal fever was associated with the highest mortality rate.
In 1847, a 29-year-old doctor from Vienna, Ignaz Semmelweis, discovered the secret of puerperal fever. Comparing data in two different clinics, he came to the conclusion that the cause of this disease was the carelessness of doctors who examined pregnant women, delivered babies and performed gynecological operations with unsterile hands and in unsterile conditions. Ignaz Semmelweis suggested washing your hands not just with soap and water, but disinfecting them with chlorine water - this was the essence of the new method of preventing the disease.
Semmelweis’s teaching was not finally and universally accepted during his lifetime; he died in 1865, i.e. 18 years after its discovery, although it was extremely easy to verify its correctness in practice. Moreover, Semmelweis's discovery caused a sharp wave of condemnation not only against his technique, but also against himself (all the luminaries of the medical world of Europe rebelled).
Semmelweis was a young specialist (by the time of his discovery, he had worked as a doctor for about six months) and had not yet landed on the saving shore of any of the then existing theories. Therefore, he had no need to adjust the facts to some pre-selected concept. It is much more difficult for an experienced specialist to make a revolutionary discovery than for a young, inexperienced one. There is no paradox in this: major discoveries require the abandonment of old theories. This is very difficult for a professional: the psychological inertia of experience presses. And the person passes by the opening, fenced off with an impenetrable “it doesn’t happen”...
Semmelweis's discovery, in fact, was a verdict on obstetricians all over the world, who rejected him and continued to work with old methods. It turned these doctors into murderers, literally introducing infection with their own hands. This is the main reason why it was initially sharply and unconditionally rejected. The director of the clinic, Dr. Klein, forbade Semmelweis to publish statistics on the reduction in mortality with the introduction of hand sterilization. Klein said he would consider such a publication a denunciation. In fact, just for the discovery, Semmelweis was expelled from work (the formal contract was not renewed), despite the fact that the mortality rate in the clinic had dropped sharply. He had to leave Vienna for Budapest, where he did not immediately and with difficulty get a job.
The naturalness of such an attitude is easy to understand if you imagine the impression Semmelweis’s discovery made on doctors. When one of them, Gustav Michaelis, a famous doctor from Kiel, informed about the technique, introduced mandatory sterilization of hands with chlorine water in his clinic in 1848 and became convinced that the mortality rate had really dropped, then, unable to withstand the shock, he committed suicide. In addition, Semmelweis, in the eyes of the world professors, was too young and inexperienced to teach and, moreover, to demand anything else. Finally, his discovery sharply contradicted most of the then theories.
At first, Semmelweis tried to inform doctors in the most delicate way - through private letters. He wrote to world-famous scientists - Virchow, Simpson. Compared to them, Semmelweis was a provincial doctor who did not even have work experience. His letters had virtually no effect on the world community of doctors, and everything remained the same: doctors did not disinfect their hands, patients died, and this was considered the norm.
By 1860, Semmelweis had written a book. But she was also ignored.
Only after this did he begin to write open letters to his most prominent opponents. One of them contained the following words: “... if we can somehow come to terms with the devastation caused by childbed fever before 1847, because no one can be blamed for crimes committed unknowingly, then the situation is completely different with mortality from it after 1847 1864 marks 200 years since puerperal fever began to run rampant in obstetric clinics - it is time to finally put an end to it. Who is to blame for the fact that 15 years after the advent of the theory of the prevention of puerperal fever, women in labor continue to die? No one else , as a professor of obstetrics..."
The obstetrics professors Semmelweis addressed were shocked by his tone. Semmelweis was declared a man “with an impossible character.” He appealed to the conscience of scientists, but in response they fired off “scientific” theories, shackled in the armor of reluctance to understand anything that would contradict their concepts. There was falsification and manipulation of facts. Some professors, introducing “Semmelweis sterility” in their clinics, did not officially recognize this, but in their reports attributed the reduction in mortality due to their own theories, for example, improved ventilation of wards... There were doctors who falsified statistical data. And when Semmelweis’ theory began to gain recognition, naturally, there were scientists who disputed the priority of the discovery.
Semmelweis fought fiercely all his life, knowing full well that every day of delay in the implementation of his theory brings senseless sacrifices that might not have happened... But his discovery was fully recognized only by the next generation of doctors, who did not bear the blood of thousands of women who never became mothers. The non-recognition of Semmelweis by experienced doctors was a self-justification; the method of hand disinfection could not be accepted by them in principle. It is characteristic, for example, that the Prague school of doctors, whose mortality rate was the highest in Europe, resisted the longest. Semmelweis's discovery was recognized there only... 37 (!) years after it was made.
One can imagine the state of despair that seized Semmelweis, that feeling of helplessness when, realizing that he had finally grasped the threads of a terrible disease in his hands, he understood that it was not in his power to break through the wall of conceit and traditions with which he surrounded himself contemporaries. He knew how to rid the world of illness, but the world remained deaf to his advice.» [С1]
Unlike the luminaries of medicine, the luminaries of modern physics did not kill with their own hands - they crippled the souls of people. And the bill here is not some measly hundreds of thousands. It has been firmly hammered into the mass consciousness: the modern physical picture of the world cannot be false, because it is confirmed by practice. Here they are, they say, remarkable scientific and technical achievements 20th century - atomic bomb, lasers, microelectronics devices! All of them supposedly owe their appearance to fundamental physical theories! But the truth is that these and many other technical things were the result of experimental and technological breakthroughs. And the theorists retroactively added their “fundamental theories” to these breakthroughs. And this was done extremely poorly: theorists only say that they understand how all these technical things work - but in reality there is no such understanding.
Why do we say this so confidently? Here's why. It would make sense to talk about understanding if official theories reflected objective picture of experimental facts. But they reflect a completely different picture. An unbiased study of the experimental base of physics shows that official theories are far from corresponding to experimental realities, and that in order to create the illusion of this correspondence, some facts were suppressed, some were distorted, and even added something that did not occur in experience at all. Due to the inaccessibility of such theories for criticism, preference was given to those that turned out to be the most sophisticated. But the language of truth is simple!
The tragedy of many talented individuals who try to rethink or even edit the official physical picture of the world is that they do not base their constructions on experimental realities. Talented loners read textbooks - naively believing that they contain facts. Not at all: the textbooks present ready-made interpretations of facts, adapted to the perception of the crowd. Moreover, these interpretations would look very strange in the light of a genuine experimental picture, known science. Therefore, the true experimental picture is deliberately distorted - the book provides a lot of evidence that the FACTS are partly suppressed and partly distorted. And for what? For the sake of making interpretations seem plausible - being in agreement with official theoretical doctrines. In words, learned men turn out beautifully: we are looking for, they say, truth, and the criterion of truth is practice. But in fact, their criterion of truth turns out to be accepted theoretical doctrines. For, if the facts do not fit into such a doctrine, then it is not the theory that is redrawn, but the facts. A false theory is confirmed by false practice. But the pride of scientists does not suffer. We, they say, have walked the right path, we are walking, and we will continue to walk!
This is not just another conspiracy theory. It’s just that every scientist understands that if he “tramples against the tide,” he will risk his reputation, career, funding...
The successes of modern technologies have almost nothing to do with physical theories. Previously, we were well familiar with the situation when on a buggy and faulty software sometimes I managed to do something useful. It turns out that physical theories can compete with the products of the cool guys from Redmond. For example, Einstein slowed down physics with his creations for exactly a hundred years. AND atomic bomb didn't do
thanks to
theory of relativity, and
to her. But the problem is not only with Einstein personally with the epigones, who, following the master, began vying to impose their far-fetched “axioms” and “postulates” on reality, “making” a “scientific reputation” and “specific money” on this. Everything is much more serious.
Welcome to the real, that is, “digital” physical world!
Section 1. MAIN CATEGORIES OF THE “DIGITAL” WORLD
1.1. What are we talking about, exactly?
In the history of medicine there was such a clinical case.
Until about the mid-19th century, maternity fever was rampant in obstetric clinics in Europe. In some years, it claimed up to 30 percent or more of the lives of mothers who gave birth in these clinics. Women preferred to give birth on trains and on the streets, rather than end up in a hospital, and when they went there, they said goodbye to their families as if they were going to the chopping block. It was believed that this disease was epidemic in nature; there were about 30 theories of its origin. It was associated with changes in the state of the atmosphere, and with soil changes, and with the location of the clinics, and they tried to treat everything, including the use of laxatives. Autopsies always showed the same picture: death was due to blood poisoning.
F. Pachner gives the following figures: “...over 60 years in Prussia alone, 363,624 women in labor died from maternity fever, i.e. more than during the same time from smallpox and cholera combined... Mortality rate of 10% was considered quite normal, in other words, out of 100 women in labor, 10 died from puerperal fever...” Of all the diseases subjected to statistical analysis at that time, puerperal fever was accompanied by the highest mortality rate.
In 1847, a 29-year-old doctor from Vienna, Ignaz Semmelweis, discovered the secret of puerperal fever. Comparing data in two different clinics, he came to the conclusion that the cause of this disease was the carelessness of doctors who examined pregnant women, delivered babies and performed gynecological operations with unsterile hands and in unsterile conditions. Ignaz Semmelweis suggested washing your hands not just with soap and water, but disinfecting them with chlorine water - this was the essence of the new method of preventing the disease.
Semmelweis’s teaching was not finally and universally accepted during his lifetime; he died in 1865, i.e. 18 years after its discovery, although it was extremely easy to verify its correctness in practice. Moreover, Semmelweis's discovery caused a sharp wave of condemnation not only against his technique, but also against himself (all the luminaries of the medical world of Europe rebelled).
1.2. Sequential or parallel control of physical objects?
Today, even children know something about personal computers. Therefore, as a child’s illustration of the proposed model of the physical world, the following analogy can be given: a virtual reality world on a computer monitor and the software of this little world, which is not on the monitor, but on another level of reality - on the computer’s hard drive. Adhering to the concept of self-sufficiency of the physical world is about the same as seriously asserting that the reasons for the blinking of pixels on the monitor (and how coordinated they blink: pictures fascinate us!) are in the pixels themselves, or at least somewhere between them – but right there, on the monitor screen. It is clear that, with such an absurd approach, in attempts to explain the reasons for these wondrous pictures, one will inevitably have to create illusory entities. Lies will give rise to new lies, and so on. Moreover, confirmation of this stream of lies would seem to be obvious - after all, the pixels, whatever one may say, are blinking!
But, nevertheless, we brought this computer analogy for lack of a better one. It is very unsuccessful, since software support for the existence of the physical world is carried out according to principles, the implementation of which in computers today is prohibitively unattainable.
The fundamental difference here is the following. The computer has a processor that, for each working cycle, performs logical operations with the contents of a very limited number of memory cells. This is called “sequential access mode” - the larger the size of the task, the longer it takes to complete it. You can increase the processor clock frequency or increase the number of processors themselves - the principle of sequential access remains the same. The physical world lives differently. Imagine what would happen in it if the electrons were controlled in sequential access mode - and each electron, in order to change its state, would have to wait until all the other electrons were polled! The point is not that the electron could wait if the “processor clock frequency” was made fantastically high. The fact is that we see: countless numbers of electrons change their states simultaneously and independently of each other. This means that they are controlled according to the principle of “parallel access” - each individually, but all at once! This means that a standard control package is connected to each electron, in which all the envisaged behavior options for the electron are spelled out - and this package, without contacting the main “processor,” controls the electron, immediately responding to the situations in which it finds itself!
Here, imagine: a sentry is on duty. An alarming situation arises. The sentry grabs the phone: “Comrade captain, two big guys are coming towards me!” What to do?" - and in response: “The line is busy... Wait for an answer...” Because the captain has a hundred such slobs, and he explains to everyone what to do. Here it is, “sequential access”. Too centralized control, which turns into a disaster. And with “parallel access,” the sentry himself knows what to do: all conceivable scenarios were explained to him in advance. "Bang!" - and the alarming situation is resolved. Would you say that this is “stupid”? What is "automatic"? But that’s where the physical world stands. Where have you seen an electron decide whether to turn right or left while flying next to a magnet?
Of course, it is not only the behavior of electrons that is controlled by individually connected software packages. The structure-forming algorithms, thanks to which atoms and nuclei exist, also operate in parallel access mode. And even for each quantum of light, a separate channel of the navigator program is allocated, which calculates the “path” of this quantum.
1.3. Some operating principles of physical world software.
The provision of the existence of the physical world with software is a death sentence for many models and concepts of modern theoretical physics, since the functioning of software occurs according to principles, the consideration of which limits the flight of theoretical fantasies.
First of all, if the existence of the physical world is software-supported, then this existence is completely algorithmic. Any physical object is the embodiment of a clear set of algorithms. Therefore, an adequate theoretical model of this object is, of course, possible. But this model can only be based on correct knowledge of the corresponding set of algorithms. Moreover, an adequate model must be free from internal contradictions, since the corresponding set of algorithms is free from them - otherwise it would be inoperative. Likewise, adequate models of various physical objects must be free from contradictions among themselves.
Of course, until we have full knowledge the entire set of algorithms that ensure the existence of the physical world, contradictions in our theoretical views on the physical world are inevitable. But a decrease in the number of these contradictions would indicate our progress towards the truth. In modern physics, on the contrary, the number of blatant contradictions only increases with time - and this means that what is happening here is not moving towards the truth at all.
What are the basic principles of organizing the software of existence of the physical world? There are programs that are a set of numbered command statements. The sequence of their execution is determined, starting with the “Start work” operator and ending with the “Finish work” operator. If such a program, while running, does not get stuck in a bad situation like a loop, then it will certainly get to the “end” and stop successfully. As you can see, it is impossible to build software that can function uninterruptedly indefinitely using programs of this type alone. Therefore, the software of the physical world, as one can assume, is built on the principles of event handlers, i.e. according to the following logic: if such and such preconditions are met, then this is what to do. And if other preconditions are met, do this. And if neither one nor the other is met, do nothing, keep everything as it is! Two important consequences follow from this.
Firstly, from the work on preconditions it follows
1.4. The concept of a quantum pulsator. Weight.
To create the simplest digital object on a computer monitor screen, you need, using a simple program, to make a pixel “blink” with a certain frequency, i.e. alternately be in two states - in one of which the pixel glows, and in the other it does not glow.
Similarly, we call the simplest object of the “digital” physical world a quantum pulsator. It appears to us as something that is alternately in two different states, which cyclically replace each other with a characteristic frequency - this process is directly set by the corresponding program, which forms a quantum pulsator in the physical world. What are the two states of a quantum pulsator? We can liken them to logic one and logic zero in digital devices based on binary logic. The quantum pulsator expresses, in its purest form, the idea of being in time: the cyclic change of two states in question is an indefinitely long movement in its simplest form, which does not at all imply movement in space.
The quantum pulsator remains in existence while the chain of cyclic changes of its two states continues: tick-tock, tick-tock, etc. If a quantum pulsator “freezes” in the “tick” state, it falls out of existence. If he “hangs” in the “like this” state, he also falls out of existence!
The fact that a quantum pulsator is the simplest object of the physical world, i.e. elementary particle substance means that the substance is not divisible to infinity. The electron, being a quantum pulsator, does not consist of any quarks - which are the fantasies of theorists. A qualitative transition occurs on a quantum pulsator: from the physical level of reality to the software level.
Like any form of motion, quantum ripples have energy. However, a quantum pulsator is fundamentally different from a classical oscillator. Classical oscillations occur “in a sinusoid”, and their energy depends on two physical parameters - frequency and amplitude - the values of which can vary. For quantum pulsations, obviously, the amplitude cannot change – i.e. it cannot be a parameter on which the energy of quantum pulsations depends. The only parameter on which energy depends
1.5. The unsuitability of the concept of relative velocities for describing the realities of the physical world.
“The speeds of movement of bodies are relative, and it is impossible to say unambiguously who is moving relative to whom, because if body A moves relative to body B, then body B, in turn, moves relative to body A...”
These conclusions, implanted in us since school, look impeccable from a formal logical point of view. But, from a physical point of view, they would only be suitable for an unreal world in which there are no accelerations. It is not without reason that Einstein taught that STR is valid only for reference systems (FR), “moving relative to each other rectilinearly and uniformly” [E1] - however, he did not indicate any such practical reference system. So far there has been no progress on this issue. Isn’t it funny that, for more than a hundred years, the basic theory of official physics has not specified a practical area of applicability?
And the reason for this anecdotal situation is very simple: in the real world, due to physical interactions, acceleration of bodies is inevitable. And then, trampling formal logic, the movement takes on an unambiguous character: the Earth revolves around the Sun, a pebble falls on the Earth, etc. For example, the uniqueness of the kinematics when a pebble falls on the Earth - i.e., the non-physicality of the situation in which the Earth falls on a pebble - is confirmed based on the law of conservation of energy. Indeed, if when a pebble collides with the Earth, the collision speed is
That is, the kinetic energy that can be converted into other forms is half the product of the square of the speed
the mass of a pebble, but certainly not the mass of the Earth. This means that it was the pebble that gained this speed, i.e. the named case is adequately described in the CO associated with the Earth. But this turn of events did not suit the relativists. In order to save the concept of relative velocities, they agreed to the point that, for the named case, CO associated with a pebble is supposedly no worse than CO associated with the Earth. True, in the CO associated with the pebble, the Earth moves with acceleration
and, picking up speed
Moreover, if we remember that real energy transformations must occur unambiguously (
By the way, the uniqueness of the increments kinetic energy test body, in accordance with the increments of its “true” speed, would be very problematic if the body were attracted to several other bodies at once and, accordingly, acquired acceleration free fall to several attracting centers at once - as required by the law of universal gravitation. For example, if an asteroid would experience gravity towards both the Sun and the planets, then what is the “true” speed of the asteroid, the increments of which determine the increments of its kinetic energy? The question is not trivial. And, in order not to suffer with it, it is much easier to delimit the areas of action of gravity of the Sun and planets in space - so that the test body, no matter where it is, always gravitates only towards one attracting center. To do this, it is necessary to ensure that the areas of influence of planetary gravity do not intersect with each other, and that in each area of planetary gravity solar gravity is “turned off”. With such an organization of gravity, i.e. according to the principle of its unitary action (
Section 2. ORGANIZATION OF GRAVITY IN THE “DIGITAL” WORLD
2.1. Do you believe that gravity is generated by masses?
The law of universal gravitation, as Newton formulated it, was purely postulate. Based on traffic observations celestial bodies and after the fall of small bodies to the Earth, it was declared that any two masses in the Universe are attracted to each other with a force equal to
Masses attracting each other,
The distance between them. Few people know: from the accelerations of free fall to large cosmic bodies - to the Sun and planets - only the products of the gravitational constant are determined
on the masses of these bodies, but these masses themselves are by no means determined. If the accepted value
would be, say, twice as large, and the accepted masses of the Sun and planets would be half as large (or vice versa) - this would not in any way affect the results of the theoretical analysis of the motion of bodies in solar system. That is, the accepted values of the masses of the Sun and planets are dictated by the accepted value of the gravitational constant. But whether these accepted mass values coincide with their true values, corresponding to the amount of matter in the Sun and planets, is still unknown to science.
Why did Newton put the product of masses into formula (2.1.1)? – it’s on his conscience. But it became like this: more mass - stronger attraction to it, less mass - weaker attraction to it, no mass at all - no attraction to it at all... So, what generates this attraction? Of course, by mass - this is purely mathematically clear!
But physically this was not at all clear. Newton did not explain what caused the mutual attraction of massive bodies. All he said about this was that massive bodies act on each other at a distance through some intermediary. But to speculate about the nature of this mediator would mean resorting to hypotheses - and, as Newton believed, he “did not invent hypotheses.”
2.2. How Cavendish and his followers obtained “attraction” between laboratory blanks.
It is believed that the first experiment that proved the existence of gravitational attraction between laboratory discs is the famous Cavendish experiment (1798). It would seem that, in view of the exceptional importance of this experience, its technical and methodological details should be easily accessible. Learn, students, how to conduct fundamental experiments! But it was not there. Students are fed an obscenely adapted version. They say that Cavendish used a torsion balance: a horizontal beam with weights at the ends, suspended from its center on a thin elastic string. It can rotate in a horizontal plane, twisting the elastic suspension. Cavendish allegedly brought a couple of blanks closer to the rocker weights - with opposite sides- and the rocker turned to a small angle, at which the moment of the forces of gravitational attraction of the weights to the blanks was balanced by the elastic reaction of the suspension to twisting. That's it, guys! Got it? Well done! Five points for everyone! Don't bother with the details!
But this is strange, damn it! Even in specialized publications like [C1], the details of Cavendish’s experience are not presented! It’s fortunate that we managed to get to them in a book on the history of physics [G1], where a translation of the original source is given - the work of Cavendish himself. This is some kind of wonderful dream. The technique used by Cavendish clearly shows that there was no sign of gravitational attraction of the blanks!
Look: the Cavendish torsion balance is a highly sensitive system that performs long-period and high-quality free oscillations. They are difficult to calm down. Therefore, the idea of the experiment was as follows: after moving the blanks from the far “non-attracting” position to the near “attracting” one, the rocker had to continue its oscillations - turning so that the average positions of the weights approached the blanks.
And how did this idea come to fruition? Yes, I had to puff! Initial position: the rocker arm oscillates, and the blanks are in a distant, “non-attracting” position. If it is expected that, as a result of their movement to the near position, the rocker arm will rotate to a new average position of oscillations, then when should the blanks be moved so that this rotation of the rocker arm appears in its purest form? Of course, when the rocker arm passes the current average position and moves towards the expected turn. That's exactly what was done. And - oh, miracle! – the rocker began to turn. It would seem - wait until a new average position is revealed, and it’s done! But no. Here's what Cavendish wrote:
There is reason to believe that Cavendish’s “secret of success” was associated with microvibrations, under the influence of which the parameters of the torsion balances changed, so that the scales changed their behavior. This change is as follows. Let, when the rocker arm passes the middle position, microvibrations begin - for example, at the bracket to which the rocker arm suspension is attached. The experience of using vibrations in technology [B1] shows that under the influence of microvibrations, the effective rigidity of the suspension should decrease: the string will soften, as it were. And this means that the rocker will deviate from the average position by a significantly greater amount than with free deflection without microvibrations. Moreover, if this increased deviation does not exceed a certain critical value, then another interesting effect will be possible. Namely: if the microvibrations stop before the rocker reaches its maximum deflection, then free vibrations will resume with the same amplitude, but with a shifted average position. Moreover, this effect will be reversible: with a new suitable addition of microvibrations, it will be possible to return the rocker oscillations to their previous average position. Thus, the behavior of Cavendish's torsional balances could well be due to just suitable additions of microvibrations to the torsional vibrations of the rocker arm.
2.3. What does the geoid shape tell us?
If the Earth were a homogeneous sphere, then, according to the law of universal gravitation, the gravitational force acting on a test body near the surface of the Earth would depend only on the distance to its center. But the Earth is an oblate ellipsoid, having a so-called “equatorial convexity”. The equatorial radius of the Earth is approximately 6378.2 km, and the polar radius is 6356.8 km [A1]. Due to the fact that the equatorial radius of the Earth is greater than the polar one, the gravitational force at the equator should be slightly less than at the pole. Moreover, it is believed that the shape of the geoid is hydrodynamically equilibrium, i.e. that the equatorial bulge was formed not without help centrifugal forces, caused by the Earth's own rotation. If we find the increment Δ
equatorial radius from the condition that the resulting decrease in gravitational acceleration at the equator is equal to the centrifugal acceleration at the equator, then for Δ
we get a value of 11 km [G3]. Note that if Earth turns into an oblate ellipsoid while maintaining its volume, then, in accordance with the formula for the volume of an ellipsoid, an increase in the equatorial radius by 11 km will cause a decrease in the polar radius by the same 11 km. The final difference will be 22 km, i.e. a value close to the actual one. This means that the model of the hydrodynamically equilibrium shape of the geoid is very similar to the truth.
Now let us pay attention to the fact that in our calculations we did not take into account the gravitational effect of the substance located in the volume of the equatorial bulge - this action, if it had taken place, would not be the same in gravimetric measurements at the equator and at the pole. In gravimetric measurements at the pole, the effect of the entire equatorial bulge would be an order of magnitude less than the effect of a small characteristic part of the equatorial bulge adjacent to the measurement point at the equator. Therefore, due to the presence of the equatorial bulge, the force of gravity at the equator would be further increased compared to the force of gravity at the pole - and hence the equilibrium increase in the equatorial radius Δ
Thus, if the equatorial bulge had an attractive effect, then the hydrodynamically equilibrium shape of the geoid would differ markedly from the actual one. But these noticeable differences are not observed. From this we conclude: hundreds of trillions of tons of matter in the equatorial bulge of the Earth do not have an attractive effect.
This amazing, “surface” conclusion has not yet been disputed by anyone. Is it ballistics who calculate movement? artificial satellites The Earth, they assured us, took into account in their calculations the gravitational effect of the equatorial bulge. Well, what can you do? We know that when optimizing many parameters, this is exactly what they do: they take into account non-existent effects. Everything is fine!
2.4. Stunning results of gravimetric measurements.
The surface masses of the Earth are distributed non-uniformly. There are powerful mountain ranges there, with a rock density of about three tons per cubic meter. There are oceans in which the density of water is only a ton per cubic meter - even at a depth of 11 kilometers. There are valleys below sea level - in which the density of matter is equal to the density of air. According to the logic of the law of universal gravitation, these inhomogeneities in the distribution of masses should act on gravimetric instruments.
The simplest gravimetric instrument is a plumb line - when calmed down, it is oriented along the local vertical. Attempts have long been made to detect deviations of the plumb line due to the attraction of, for example, powerful mountain ranges. Only the role of a plumb line here was, of course, not played by a simple weight on a string - for how can one know where and how much it is deflected? And the method used was to compare the geodetic coordinates of the measurement point (obtained, for example, using triangulation) and its coordinates obtained from astronomical observations. Only the second of these methods uses reference to the local vertical, which is implemented, for example, using the mercury horizon at the telescope. Thus, by the difference in the coordinates of a point obtained by these two methods, one can judge the deviation of the local vertical.
So, the resulting deviations in most cases turned out to be much less than those expected due to the action of mountain ranges. Many textbooks on gravimetry (see, for example, [Ts1,Sh1]) mention measurements that were carried out by the British south of the Himalayas in the mid-19th century. Record deviations were expected there, because to the north was the most powerful mountain range on Earth, and to the south - Indian Ocean. But the detected deviations turned out to be almost zero. A similar behavior of the plumb line is found near the sea coastline - contrary to the expectation that land is denser than sea water, will attract the plumb line more strongly. To explain such miracles, scientists adopted the isostasy hypothesis. According to this hypothesis, the effect of inhomogeneities surface masses compensated by the action of inhomogeneities of the opposite sign located at a certain depth. That is, under the surface dense rocks there should be loose rocks, and vice versa. Moreover, these upper and lower inhomogeneities should, by joint efforts, everywhere nullify the effect on the plumb line - as if there were no inhomogeneities at all.
You know, when the readers of our articles reached the passages about isostasy, they did not believe the possibility of such babble in modern science, they rushed, for example, to Wikipedia - and were convinced that everything was so. And - as they put it - “the patztuls fell from laughter.” Well, really: the deeper the ocean, the more powerful the dense compensating deposits under its bottom. And the higher the mountains, the more and more loose their foundation they appear on. Moreover, everything is perfect! Even children find it funny! But children do not yet know that the concept of isostasy directly contradicts the realities of dynamics earth's crust[M1] – otherwise they would laugh even louder.
Note that the deviations of the plumb line indicate the horizontal components of the local gravity vector. Its vertical component is determined using gravimeters. The same miracles happen with gravimeters as with plumb lines. But there are a lot of measurements with gravimeters. Therefore, in order not to make people laugh, experts have piled up terminological and methodological jungle, through which it is difficult for the uninitiated to get through.
2.5. Where is the attractive effect of small bodies of the Solar System?
In the Solar System, the Sun, planets and Moon clearly have their own gravity; and also, judging by the presence of an atmosphere, on Titan. As for the remaining satellites of the planets, we find the following.
Firstly, even in the cases of the largest satellites (including Titan), the dynamic reaction of their planets has not been detected - which, in accordance with the law of universal gravitation, should revolve around a common center of mass with the satellite.
Secondly, the presence of atmospheres would indicate the gravity of the planets’ satellites. But, with the exception of Titan, no clear signs of atmospheres were found in any of them.
Thirdly, none of the six dozen planetary satellites known to date have discovered a single satellite of their own. In the light of probability theory, this state of affairs looks rather strange.
Fourthly, the so-called dynamic determinations of satellite masses, based on the axiom that satellites of one planet will certainly disturb each other’s motion. If in reality the satellites do not attract each other, then dynamic determinations of their masses are attempts to solve an incorrectly posed problem. And the signs of this are indeed evident: the results of using this technique turn out to be vague and ambiguous. Here are comments on de Sitter’s determination of the masses of the four large satellites of Jupiter, based on the periodic solution he obtained: “
The actual orbits of the satellites do not correspond exactly to the periodic solution, but can be obtained from the periodic solution by varying the coordinates and velocity components...
…the difficulty is the slow convergence of the analytical expansion in powers of mass
"[M2]. However, the mass values, "
"[D1]. The “most probable” values of satellite masses chosen here - from a set of non-repeating values - can hardly serve
The tragedy of many talented individuals who try to rethink or even edit the official physical picture of the world is that they do not base their constructions on experimental realities. Talented loners read textbooks - naively believing that they contain facts. Not at all: the textbook contains ready-made interpretations of facts, adapted to the perception of the crowd. Moreover, these interpretations would look very strange in the light of the genuine experimental picture known to science. Therefore, the true experimental picture is deliberately distorted - the book provides a lot of evidence that the FACTS are partly suppressed and partly distorted. And for what? For the sake of making interpretations seem plausible - being in agreement with official theoretical doctrines. In words, learned men turn out beautifully: we are looking for, they say, truth, and the criterion of truth is practice. But in fact, their criterion of truth turns out to be accepted theoretical doctrines. For, if the facts do not fit into such a doctrine, then it is not the theory that is redrawn, but the facts. A false theory is confirmed by false practice. But the pride of scientists does not suffer. We, they say, have walked the right path, we are walking, and we will continue to walk! This is not just another conspiracy theory. It’s just that every scientist understands that if he “tramples against the tide,” he will risk his reputation, career, funding... The successes of modern technologies have almost nothing to do with physical theories. We used to be very familiar with the situation where it was sometimes possible to do something useful with buggy and faulty software. It turns out that physical theories can compete with the products of the cool guys from Redmond. For example, Einstein slowed down physics with his creations for exactly a hundred years. And the atomic bomb was made not thanks to the theory of relativity, but in spite of it. But the problem is not only with Einstein personally with the epigones, who, following the master, began vying to impose their far-fetched “axioms” and “postulates” on reality, “making” a “scientific reputation” and “specific money” on this. Everything is much more serious. Welcome to the real, that is, “digital” physical world!
The work belongs to the Science genre. On our website you can download the book “This “digital” physical world” for free in epub, fb2 format or read online. The book's rating is 3.74 out of 5. Here, before reading, you can also turn to reviews from readers who are already familiar with the book and find out their opinion. In our partner's online store you can buy and read the book in paper form.
“The language of truth is simple.”
Seneca the Younger1.1. What are we talking about, exactly?
In the history of medicine there was such a clinical case.
« Until about the mid-19th century, maternity fever was rampant in obstetric clinics in Europe. In some years, it claimed up to 30 percent or more of the lives of mothers who gave birth in these clinics. Women preferred to give birth on trains and on the streets, rather than end up in a hospital, and when they went there, they said goodbye to their families as if they were going to the chopping block. It was believed that this disease was epidemic in nature; there were about 30 theories of its origin. It was associated with changes in the state of the atmosphere, and with soil changes, and with the location of the clinics, and they tried to treat everything, including the use of laxatives. Autopsies always showed the same picture: death was due to blood poisoning.
F. Pachner gives the following figures: “...over 60 years in Prussia alone, 363,624 women in labor died from maternity fever, i.e. more than during the same time from smallpox and cholera combined... Mortality rate of 10% was considered quite normal, in other words, out of 100 women in labor, 10 died from puerperal fever...” Of all the diseases subjected to statistical analysis at that time, puerperal fever was accompanied by the highest mortality rate.
In 1847, a 29-year-old doctor from Vienna, Ignaz Semmelweis, discovered the secret of puerperal fever. Comparing data in two different clinics, he came to the conclusion that the cause of this disease was the carelessness of doctors who examined pregnant women, delivered babies and performed gynecological operations with unsterile hands and in unsterile conditions. Ignaz Semmelweis suggested washing your hands not just with soap and water, but disinfecting them with chlorine water - this was the essence of the new method of preventing the disease.
Semmelweis’s teaching was not finally and universally accepted during his lifetime; he died in 1865, i.e. 18 years after its discovery, although it was extremely easy to verify its correctness in practice. Moreover, Semmelweis's discovery caused a sharp wave of condemnation not only against his technique, but also against himself (all the luminaries of the medical world of Europe rebelled).
Semmelweis was a young specialist (by the time of his discovery, he had worked as a doctor for about six months) and had not yet landed on the saving shore of any of the then existing theories. Therefore, he had no need to adjust the facts to some pre-selected concept. It is much more difficult for an experienced specialist to make a revolutionary discovery than for a young, inexperienced one. There is no paradox in this: major discoveries require the abandonment of old theories. This is very difficult for a professional: the psychological inertia of experience presses. And the person passes by the opening, fenced off with an impenetrable “it doesn’t happen”...
Semmelweis's discovery, in fact, was a verdict on obstetricians all over the world, who rejected him and continued to work with old methods. It turned these doctors into murderers, literally introducing infection with their own hands. This is the main reason why it was initially sharply and unconditionally rejected. The director of the clinic, Dr. Klein, forbade Semmelweis to publish statistics on the reduction in mortality with the introduction of hand sterilization. Klein said he would consider such a publication a denunciation. In fact, just for the discovery, Semmelweis was expelled from work (the formal contract was not renewed), despite the fact that the mortality rate in the clinic had dropped sharply. He had to leave Vienna for Budapest, where he did not immediately and with difficulty get a job.
The naturalness of such an attitude is easy to understand if you imagine the impression Semmelweis’s discovery made on doctors. When one of them, Gustav Michaelis, a famous doctor from Kiel, informed about the technique, introduced mandatory sterilization of hands with chlorine water in his clinic in 1848 and became convinced that the mortality rate had really dropped, then, unable to withstand the shock, he committed suicide. In addition, Semmelweis, in the eyes of the world professors, was too young and inexperienced to teach and, moreover, to demand anything else. Finally, his discovery sharply contradicted most of the then theories.
At first, Semmelweis tried to inform doctors in the most delicate way - through private letters. He wrote to world-famous scientists - Virchow, Simpson. Compared to them, Semmelweis was a provincial doctor who did not even have work experience. His letters had virtually no effect on the world community of doctors, and everything remained the same: doctors did not disinfect their hands, patients died, and this was considered the norm.
By 1860, Semmelweis had written a book. But she was also ignored.
Only after this did he begin to write open letters to his most prominent opponents. One of them contained the following words: “... if we can somehow come to terms with the devastation caused by childbed fever before 1847, because no one can be blamed for crimes committed unknowingly, then the situation is completely different with mortality from it after 1847 1864 marks 200 years since puerperal fever began to run rampant in obstetric clinics - it is time to finally put an end to it. Who is to blame for the fact that 15 years after the advent of the theory of the prevention of puerperal fever, women in labor continue to die? No one else , as a professor of obstetrics..."
The obstetrics professors Semmelweis addressed were shocked by his tone. Semmelweis was declared a man “with an impossible character.” He appealed to the conscience of scientists, but in response they fired off “scientific” theories, shackled in the armor of reluctance to understand anything that would contradict their concepts. There was falsification and manipulation of facts. Some professors, introducing “Semmelweis sterility” in their clinics, did not officially recognize this, but in their reports attributed the reduction in mortality due to their own theories, for example, improved ventilation of wards... There were doctors who falsified statistical data. And when Semmelweis’ theory began to gain recognition, naturally, there were scientists who disputed the priority of the discovery.
Semmelweis fought fiercely all his life, knowing full well that every day of delay in the implementation of his theory brings senseless sacrifices that might not have happened... But his discovery was fully recognized only by the next generation of doctors, who did not bear the blood of thousands of women who never became mothers. The non-recognition of Semmelweis by experienced doctors was a self-justification; the method of hand disinfection could not be accepted by them in principle. It is characteristic, for example, that the Prague school of doctors, whose mortality rate was the highest in Europe, resisted the longest. Semmelweis's discovery was recognized there only... 37 (!) years after it was made.