Ideas that changed our notion about the Universe.

1. Aristotle Fallacy; A notion that objects need force for their movement. It contradicts the idea of inertia. Newton corrected this by introducing the first law, things continue in their state of motion, a quality called as inertia, without requiring force and the motion changes due to application of force.

2. Earth is flat; that there is a boundary where you fall off its edge. [I am not going to explain or tell you how and when we found this was a horrendously hilarious and misleading notion we had. But it might have been used in the past by parents to discipline their teen-age kids. Don’t go out, you will fall off earth. That would have kept them in check.]

3. Rotational Dynamics; Earth is accelerating in a near circle in addition to about itself, so additional forces are acting that changes our observation about the world. Newton tried to understand this (not successful) in his last days, by rotating a bucket full of water, his laws could not explain the effects observed. His laws needed to be modified slightly. The same thing makes objects feel weightless by a given amount if they are accelerating towards a gravitational field (eg merry go round, satellites) This is the basis of many works of Einstein. First came Mach’s Principle which says observations made from objects that are accelerating in circular paths are to be corrected by fixing frames of references to stars that are so far away that the rotational motion is neglected. [if you shake your head while looking at stars and shake your head by looking at nearby objects such as a light post, evidently the light post shakes more and the stars less]. This helps in correcting observed phenomena from earth. Earth moves at 30 kms/second wrt sun …

read more Ideas that changed our notion about the Universe.

Read more

The basics of Physics — is Gravity amenable to Quantization?

The basics of Physics — is Gravity amenable to Quantization?

This is a very detailed and long article, but written in a very simple language, as it seems to me, describing such concepts as; the basis of expectations of “Quantization of Gravity with other forces” which is colloquially known as Einstein’s dream of GUT — or, Grand Unified Theory, and whether such is possible or not and what we may be missing.

This article also describes briefly Pseudo Forces — check a detailed description here. (web-link)

In detail the basis of Physics Formalism — check a discourse here (web-link) and

What are waves and particle — (a link to an extensive discussion will be provided, upon further review), the discussion is in terms of a Formal POV of Physics — ‘slightly”, but much can be based and expanded on such.

This would be one of the most well written article by me as I would think.

So lets get back to the discussion of our original topic of interest.

The basics of Physics — is Gravity amenable to Quantization?

I like to speak first; about a development of Physics, in this article, that follows a chronological path, rather than, how we look at the cumulative understanding, in modern times, upon which we base our statements and help ourselves be inconsistent, because we forget or rather are oblivious; to the deeper framework, in which things were developed.

— Today I want to focus on Gravity. But before I talk about Gravity; I would like to speak something, on Physics itself.

read more The basics of Physics — is Gravity amenable to Quantization?

Read more

Whats a clock?

A clock is a device that knows how much energy is input and at what “time” rate. Time-rate can be arbitrary in nature but NOT in a clock. A clock is an anthropic time device. A clock is designed to know what energy is spent for a predefined uniform rate of spending that energy so that, that uniform rate is called time. But time in nature can be understood by studying any energy devices. To understand their uniformity [flatness] and design is called Physics. Every physical device is a clock. We just may not know howto read them.

read more Whats a clock?

Read more

Why is energy conserved?

Here is the way; that hasn’t been changed in a long time. We, start with a simple object, and we note that, such an object is defined for its motion by whats called, its location in space = x, or, the increments in its location, which is called, an infinitesimal distance = dx, the instantaneous time at which its motion is referred, t, or, the increments in its time, called dt.

Thats it. And, we would like to know; all that the object does in terms of x, t.

I would not like it, if my dear people sit in a car, and it vanished into thin air and never came back. I would like to keep track of it, the car, because I know my people would still be in it. I would like to, keep track of satellites, and, missiles and airplanes, I would like to know, whats happening around me, and why its happening.

It all started, with the quest, to solve for the trajectory, and then, became more complicated, as the complexity of these objects or systems grew. Collectively, they satisfy greatly, the quest we had set on, since the millennium and more, to understand, whats all, that goes on, in our universe, in our close vicinity, and in situations far off from us, as far as the extraneous bounds of the galaxy, in which we live, and more and more and more and deeper and deeper.

Then, x, t are not sufficient, to describe such situations. But, since its all systematic, we know all that has been defined, its not a party or Ramstein Music Band, where you forgot what happened yesterday. Its Hello Physics Inc. Pay Attention.

Now, as we defined dx and dt, we also note that, their ratio, or as-is-called, rate of x wrt t, called speed = v, is often formally written, as, x with a dot on it, … Its the first order time derivative of x = …

We also form, two quantities;

1. from v we form m.v = p = momenta, by multiplying the mass m into the velocity or speed v.

2. from a, we form in the same way, F = m.a = force.

But, force is also defined to be the time-rate of change of momentum p, or in other words, the ratio of the increments dp and dt, …

This latter is called Newton’s 2nd law; …

Its called a law, but strictly speaking, its a mathematical law so far, and not one which describes, universe’s phenomena so it cannot be called, a physical law or principle as of yet.

This point was originally raised by Feynman; as far as I know.

read more Why is energy conserved?

A thorough understanding of the concept of Principle of Equivalence, a beginning

But, what if, we define equivalence between men and women to be “the male sexual organs and the female sexual organs perform the same job of reproduction and carnal pleasure”. That would be a specific condition which actually fits in with, the idea of equivalence. Thats what it is, the mass of gravitational and kinematic origin is a specific condition that fits in the idea of principle of equivalence.

The simpler and the more correct and intuitively proximal idea, would be “the kinetic energy and the potential energy are equivalent”, in other words, the effect of these two forms of energy, is, the same, and, they would transpire, in the same way, into, say, other forms of energy, and so on, despite of their different source of origin. Its this property that forms the basis of principle of equivalence and its this property, that leads to, much more profound ideas of Physics, than, the fact that the two kinds of masses are equivalent.

That latter, is, just a specific condition, which, must be also valid, in any case, as you can imagine right away, the mass is a factor in the energy so mass being a fundamentally measurable quantity, it must be same, in both cases, gravitational and kinematic. But, perhaps, it was unnecessary to envisage, that, they would be different. (gravitational and kinematic, mass, would be different, was unnecessary)

Because, somebody could also argue that; gravitational and kinematic speed, g&k acceleration, g&k force, g&k potential or potential energy, could be different, they are same and thats principle of equivalence. But then the argument stopped at the mass, and did not lead to other physical variables, of fundamental nature.

read more A thorough understanding of the concept of Principle of Equivalence, a beginning