DOCSLIB.ORG

Einstein on Trial Or Metaphysical Principles of Natural Philosophy

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Einstein on Trial Or Metaphysical Principles of Natural Philosophy METAPHYSICAL PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL PHILOSOPHY NATURAL PRINCIPLES OF METAPHYSICAL EINSTEIN ON TRIAL The new physics for a new millenium. In 1905 Einstein set the scientific EinsteinEinstein community on an innovative and, at the time, controversial course aban- doning the Newtonian concept of onon space and time and upholding Max- well-Lorentz electrodynamics. Was this a leap forward or has the 20th TTrialrial century followed a misleading course? or In a thoroughly readable and exhaus- tively philosophical analysis, backed Metaphysical by rigorous mathematical argu- ments, Jorge C. Curé places Principles Einstein’s conceptions on historic Céspedes-Curé Jorge of scrutiny and unifying the Newtonian and Relativistic conceptions of na- Natural ture establishes a New Physics. A fitting revolution for the new Philosophy millenium. by Jorge Céspedes-Curé i EINSTEIN ON TRIAL OR METAPHYSICAL PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL PHILOSOPHY by Jorge Céspedes-Curé Editor: Shirley Ramsey Publisher: et al Organization. 2002 Copyright © 1998 Jorge C. Curé ii All rights reserved No part of this book may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted by any means: electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise without written permission from the author. ISBN: 0-9713873-0-3 et al. Organization P. O. Box 90373, Caracas 1083 A Venezuela First Edition 2002 Second Edition, 2005 Third Edition, 2009 Printed in the UK by Antony Rowe Ltd. This book is available through Amazon.com in the USA and through Amazon.co.uk in the United Kingdom iii To Shirley Ramsey and to the future generations. iv Contents CONTENTS Preface. viii Acknowledgments. xi Introduction. xviii Chapter 1. Ontological Principles. 1 Introduction. 2 1.1 Why Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy? 2 1.2 Natural Philosophy. 6 1.3 About Theoretical Knowledge. 7 1.4 Ontological Principles. 11 1.5 Application of Ontological Principles. 17 1.6 Rules of Reasoning in Philosophy. 18 1.7 Logical Principles. 22 1.8 Why Should Scientists Study Philosophy? 25 Conclusions. 26 References. 27 Chapter 2 Newtonian Quantum Mechanics. 29 Introduction. 30 2.1 What is the Quantum Potential? 30 2.2 Mathematical Origin of the Quantum Potential. 31 2.3 Some Perplexing Comments about Quantum Mechanics. 34 2.4 Ontological Principles and some Mathematical Theorems. 36 2.5 Ontological Origin of the Quantum Potential. 40 2.6 The Missing Link in Classical Mechanics: Classical Wave Mechanics. 43 2.7 Schrödinger’s Equation is a Particular Case of Hamilton-Jacobi-Bohm’s Equation. 45 2.8 The Need for a New Electrodynamics in Nuclear Physics. 50 2.9 Some Other Causal Explanations in Quantum Mechanics. 54 Conclusions. 57 References. 59 Contents v Chapter 3. Compendium of Electrokinetics and Electrodynamics. 63 Introduction. 64 3.1 A Brief Disquisition on the concept of “Field.” 65 3.2 The English Electromagnetics versus the German Electrodynamics 68 3.3 Compendium of Electrokinetics and Electrodynamics. 71 3.4 Parametrized Newtonian Relativistic Electrodynamics. 80 3.5 Gravitodynamics and Geometrodynamics. 80 3.6 Probable Experimental Evidence of ForcesProportional to v’²/c². 83 Conclusions. 86 References. 87 Chapter 4 Newtonian Relativistic Electrodynamics. 89 Introduction. 90 4.1 Newton’s Dynamical Methodology. 91 4.2 Extension of Newton’s Axioms. 93 4.3 Comments on the Axioms. 96 4.4 Logical deduction of a Parametrized Newtonian Relativistic Ectrodynamics. 108 4.5 Action of a Permanent Magnet on Static Charges. 111 4.6 On the Paternity of Lorentz’s Force. 122 4.7 Hybrid Electrodynamics. (HED) 128 4.8 Deduction of Hertz’s “Hypothesis.” 135 4.9 Eddington’s Model of the Neutron. 137 4.10 The Convective Operator. 146 4.11 Some notes on unipolar induction. 147 Conclusions. 148 References. 149 Chapter 5. On the Identity of the Cosmic Ether. 155 Introduction. 156 5.1. Einstein’s Resuscitated Ether. 156 5.2. Einstein’s Ether is a Metaphysical Entity. 159 5.3. A Classical Identification of Einstein’s Ether. 162 5.4. On Michelson-Morley’s Experiment. 171 5.5. Derivation of the Eikonal Equation. 178 5.6. Experimental proposals. 182 Conclusions. 183 References. 184 vi Contents Chapter 6 Newtonian Relativistic Gravitodynamics. 187 Introduction 188 6.1 Newton’s Explanation of the Anomalous Motion of Planet Mercury. 189 6.2 Angular Momentum of the Sun. 199 6.3 Inertial mass, gravitational mass and the equivalence principle. 213 6.4 Mach’s Definition of Mass and Operational Definition of Inertial Reference System. 243 6.5 Mach’s principle according to Einstein and others. 249 6.6 Newtonian relativistic gravitodynamics and the Cosmic Collective Potential Energy. 258 6.7 Starlight deflection by the solar energy field. 273 6.8 Cosmological red shift and big bang theory. 280 6.9 Is gravitation an electrodynamic phenomenon? 286 6.10 Einstein-Hamilton-Jacobi’s equation and Bohm-Hamilton-Jacobi’s equation. 289 6.11 Nonlinear electrodynamic Field Theory as a Relativistic Time Bomb. 291 Conclusion. 295 References. 307 Chapter 7 Einstein’s Theological Beliefs and Scientific Theology. 311 Introduction. 312 I-1. Science and religion have a common foundation. 312 I-2. Theoretical scientific knowledge is relative. 314 I-3. Elements of Theory of Knowledge. 315 I-4. Theology by revelation and theology by reason. 327 7.1 Comments on Einstein’s essay “Religion and Science” (1930). 333 7.2 Comments on Einstein’s essay “The Religious Spirit of Science” (1934). 337 7.3 Comments on Einstein’s essay “ Science and Religion” (1939). 338 7.4 Comments on Einstein`s essay “Religion and Science, Irreconciliable?” (1948) 343 7.5. Einstein’s Theological Beliefs. 346 7.6. Science, including Logic, are not completely rational. 349 7.7. Foundations of Scientific Theology or Cosmotheism. 349 7.8. Does God Exist in Reality? 353 7.9. Is God Universal Consciousness? 359 7.10. Advanced Religion. 381 Conclusions. 384 References. 389 Verdict 393 vii Epilogue 394 Alphabetical index 401 Index of Tables Page Table 4-I. Drift of a charged latex drop in the presence of a permanent magnet. 115 Table 6-I. Astronomical excess perihelic rotations of the planets and Leverrier’s constant L. 195 Table 6-II. Newtonian, astronomical and Einsteinian excess perihelic rotations of different planets 196 Table 6-III. Excess perihelic rotation of some planets. 210 Table 6-IV. Astronomical data of Galilean Satellites of Jupiter 213 Table 6-V. Comparison of Einstein’s prediction of starlight deflection with Merat’s astronomical corrections. 274 Table 6-VI. Comparison of Einstein’s prediction of δ* with Merat’s law: δ ± Δδ. 274 Table 6-VII. Comparison of this author’s predictions of δ* with Merat’s law: δ ± Δδ. 278 Index of Figures Figure 4.1 Millikan Apparatus with Magnet. 113 Figure 7.1 Reclassification of Philosophy. 352 Figure 7.2 Interaction of material entities 1 and 2 with the rest of the system. 367 viii Preface PREFACE I had at least five reasons to write this book. The first was to defend Newton’s classical mechanics from false accusations raised by Einstein. The second reason was to deliver Natural Philosophy (physics), from the mathematical bondage of which it was submitted during the 20th century. The third reason was to liberate the minds of scientists in general, and physicists, in particular, from the corrupted 20th century slogan “publish or perish.” The fourth reason was to help induce an implosive neo-renaissance by bringing all sciences back to the womb of mother philosophy. The fifth and last reason to write the book, Einstein on Trial, was to synthesize or fuse science, philosophy and theology of the 21st century in one solid epistemological doctrine or school of thought. First Reason.- The first reason shows the following false accusations of Einstein against Newton’s Principia, or classical mechanics: 1. Classical mechanics is powerless to explain the anomalous motion of planet Mercury. 2. Classical mechanics is incapable of explaining the equality between iner- tial mass and gravitational mass. 3. Classical mechanics is incompetent to deduce formally (logically) the mathematical structure of forces. 4. Absolute space of classical mechanics does not exist. 5. Absolute time of classical mechanics does not exist. 6. The cosmic ether (Sensorium Dei of Newton) does not exit. 7. In classical mechanics absolute rotation does not exist. With the help of forerunners, I was able to disprove all the previous false accusations against Newton’s classical mechanics. Second Reason.- The second reason shows an invasion into the temple of Natural Philosophy by a herd of modern barbarians who were expelled from the temple of Mathematics. These 20th century “attilas,” riding horses with symbolic hooves, annihilated the growth of all ontological grass in the meadows of Natural Philosophy. Obviously, after Einstein created his GRT, he wrote, “Our experience hitherto justifies us believing that nature is the realization of the simplest conceivable mathematical ideas.” At least Einstein is only proposing to believe in his statement, like any dogma of faith has to be believed. Mathematics, the queen of the formal Preface ix sciences, should be treated as an almost sacred dictionary in the hands of natural philosophers, because it allows us to translate our philosophical speculations about nature into a precise language. For this reason, Mathematics is a wonderful medicine to cure mental verbiage. Third Reason.- Many years ago, when I was teaching physics to engineering students, I gathered many definitions of the concept “engineering.” I put aside one of the definitions, and I determined the “average” definition of the rest. The result was this: Engineering is the application of science for the benefit of human kind. What about the definition I left aside? In my opinion it is very accurate: Engineering is the art of making two dollars with one dollar. In the last century, we introduced the word tech- nology to replace the word engineering.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Physics/0409010V1 [Physics.Gen-Ph] 1 Sep 2004 Ri Ihteclsilshr Sntfound
    Physical Interpretations of Relativity Theory Conference IX London, Imperial College, September, 2004 ............... Mach’s Principle II by James G. Gilson∗ School of Mathematical Sciences Queen Mary College University of London October 29, 2018 Abstract 1 Introduction The question of the validity or otherwise of Mach’s The meaning and significance of Mach’s Principle Principle[5] has been with us for almost a century and and its dependence on ideas about relativistic rotat- has been vigorously analysed and discussed for all of ing frame theory and the celestial sphere is explained that time and is, up to date, still not resolved. One and discussed. Two new relativistic rotation trans- contentious issue is, does general[7] relativity theory formations are introduced by using a linear simula- imply that Mach’s Principle is operative in that theo- tion for the rotating disc situation. The accepted retical structure or does it not? A deduction[4] from formula for centrifugal acceleration in general rela- general relativity that the classical Newtonian cen- tivity is then analysed with the use of one of these trifugal acceleration formula should be modified by transformations. It is shown that for this general rel- an additional relativistic γ2(v) factor, see equations ativity formula to be valid throughout all space-time (2.11) and (2.27), will help us in the analysis of that there has to be everywhere a local standard of ab- question. Here I shall attempt to throw some light solutely zero rotation. It is then concluded that the on the nature and technical basis of the collection of field off all possible space-time null geodesics or pho- arXiv:physics/0409010v1 [physics.gen-ph] 1 Sep 2004 technical and philosophical problems generated from ton paths unify the absolute local non-rotation stan- Mach’s Principle and give some suggestions about dard throughout space-time.
    [Show full text]
  • General Relativity and Spatial Flows: I
    1 GENERAL RELATIVITY AND SPATIAL FLOWS: I. ABSOLUTE RELATIVISTIC DYNAMICS* Tom Martin Gravity Research Institute Boulder, Colorado 80306-1258 [email protected] Abstract Two complementary and equally important approaches to relativistic physics are explained. One is the standard approach, and the other is based on a study of the flows of an underlying physical substratum. Previous results concerning the substratum flow approach are reviewed, expanded, and more closely related to the formalism of General Relativity. An absolute relativistic dynamics is derived in which energy and momentum take on absolute significance with respect to the substratum. Possible new effects on satellites are described. 1. Introduction There are two fundamentally different ways to approach relativistic physics. The first approach, which was Einstein's way [1], and which is the standard way it has been practiced in modern times, recognizes the measurement reality of the impossibility of detecting the absolute translational motion of physical systems through the underlying physical substratum and the measurement reality of the limitations imposed by the finite speed of light with respect to clock synchronization procedures. The second approach, which was Lorentz's way [2] (at least for Special Relativity), recognizes the conceptual superiority of retaining the physical substratum as an important element of the physical theory and of using conceptually useful frames of reference for the understanding of underlying physical principles. Whether one does relativistic physics the Einsteinian way or the Lorentzian way really depends on one's motives. The Einsteinian approach is primarily concerned with * http://xxx.lanl.gov/ftp/gr-qc/papers/0006/0006029.pdf 2 being able to carry out practical space-time experiments and to relate the results of these experiments among variously moving observers in as efficient and uncomplicated manner as possible.
    [Show full text]
  • Arxiv:1007.1861V1 [Gr-Qc] 12 Jul 2010 Feulms N Hp.Temaueeto Uhagravito-Mag a Such of Measurement 10 the Is Shape
    A laser gyroscope system to detect the Gravito-Magnetic effect on Earth A. Di Virgilio∗ INFN Sez. di Pisa, Pisa, Italy K. U. Schreiber and A. Gebauer† Technische Universitaet Muenchen, Forschungseinrichtung Satellitengeodaesie Fundamentalstation Wettzell, 93444 Bad K¨otzting, Germany J-P. R. Wells‡ Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Canterbury, PB4800, Christchurch 8020, New Zealand A. Tartaglia§ Polit. of Torino and INFN, Torino, Italy J. Belfi and N. Beverini¶ Univ. of Pisa and CNISM, Pisa, Italy A.Ortolan∗∗ Laboratori Nazionali di Legnaro, INFN Legnaro (Padova), Italy Large scale square ring laser gyros with a length of four meters on each side are approaching a sensitivity of 1 10−11rad/s/√Hz. This is about the regime required to measure the gravito- magnetic effect (Lense× Thirring) of the Earth. For an ensemble of linearly independent gyros each measurement signal depends upon the orientation of each single axis gyro with respect to the rotational axis of the Earth. Therefore at least 3 gyros are necessary to reconstruct the complete angular orientation of the apparatus. In general, the setup consists of several laser gyroscopes (we would prefer more than 3 for sufficient redundancy), rigidly referenced to each other. Adding more gyros for one plane of observation provides a cross-check against intra-system biases and furthermore has the advantage of improving the signal to noise ratio by the square root of the number of gyros. In this paper we analyze a system of two pairs of identical gyros (twins) with a slightly different orientation with respect to the Earth axis. The twin gyro configuration has several interesting properties.
    [Show full text]
  • An Essay on the Coriolis Force
    James F. Price Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution Woods Hole, Massachusetts, 02543 http:// www.whoi.edu/science/PO/people/jprice [email protected] Version 3.3 January 10, 2006 Summary: An Earth-attached and thus rotating reference frame is almost always used for the analysis of geophysical flows. The equation of motion transformed into a steadily rotating reference frame includes two terms that involve the rotation vector; a centrifugal term and a Coriolis term. In the special case of an Earth-attached reference frame, the centrifugal term is exactly canceled by gravitational mass attraction and drops out of the equation of motion. When we solve for the acceleration seen from an Earth-attached frame, the Coriolis term is interpreted as a force. The rotating frame perspective gives up the properties of global momentum conservation and invariance to Galilean transformation. Nevertheless, it leads to a greatly simplified analysis of geophysical flows since only the comparatively small relative velocity, i.e., winds and currents, need be considered. The Coriolis force has a simple mathematical form, 2˝ V 0M , where ˝ is Earth’s rotation vector, V 0 is the velocity observed from the rotating frame and M is the particle mass. The Coriolis force is perpendicular to the velocity and can do no work. It tends to cause a deflection of velocity, and gives rise to two important modes of motion: (1) If the Coriolis force is the only force acting on a moving particle, then the velocity vector of the particle will be continually deflected and rotate clockwise in the northern hemisphere and anticlockwise in the southern hemisphere.
    [Show full text]
  • The Dynamical Velocity Superposition Effect in the Quantum-Foam In
    The Dynamical Velocity Superposition Effect in the Quantum-Foam In-Flow Theory of Gravity Reginald T. Cahill School of Chemistry, Physics and Earth Sciences Flinders University GPO Box 2100, Adelaide 5001, Australia (Reg.Cahill@flinders.edu.au) arXiv:physics/0407133 July 26, 2004 To be published in Relativity, Gravitation, Cosmology Abstract The new ‘quantum-foam in-flow’ theory of gravity has explained numerous so-called gravitational anomalies, particularly the ‘dark matter’ effect which is now seen to be a dynamical effect of space itself, and whose strength is determined by the fine structure constant, and not by Newton’s gravitational constant G. Here we show an experimen- tally significant approximate dynamical effect, namely a vector superposition effect which arises under certain dynamical conditions when we have absolute motion and gravitational in-flows: the velocities for these processes are shown to be approximately vectorially additive under these conditions. This effect plays a key role in interpreting the data from the numerous experiments that detected the absolute linear motion of the earth. The violations of this superposition effect lead to observable effects, such as the generation of turbulence. The flow theory also leads to vorticity effects that the Grav- ity Probe B gyroscope experiment will soon begin observing. As previously reported General Relativity predicts a smaller vorticity effect (therein called the Lense-Thirring ‘frame-dragging’ effect) than the new theory of gravity. arXiv:physics/0407133v3 [physics.gen-ph] 10 Nov
    [Show full text]
  • Anisotropy of Inertia from the CMB Anisotropy
    9 June 2004 TEXsis 2.18 Anisotropy of Inertia from the CMB Anisotropy Daniel J. Cross Advisor: Dr. Robert Gilmore ABSTRACT Mach's principle states that the local inertial properies of matter are determined by the global matter distribution in the universe. In 1958 Cocconi and Salpeter suggested that due to the quadrupolar assymetry of matter in the local galaxy about the earth, inertia on earth would be slightly anisotropic, leading to unequal level splittings of nuclei in a mag- netic ¯eld [1,2]. Hughes, et al., Drever, and more recently Prestage, et al. found no such quadrupole splitting [3{5]. However, recent cosmological overservations show an anisotropy in the Cosmic Microwave Background, indicating anisotropy of the matter at much greater distances. Since the in- ertial interaction acts as a power law of order unity, the e®ect of this matter would far outweigh the relatively local contribution from the galaxy [1,6]. Thus, the present article extends the work of Cocconi and Salpeter to higher multipoles leading to unequal level splittings that should be measurable by magnetic resonance experiments on nuclei of appropriate spin. 2 1. A Brief History of Inertia The problem of inertia has been and continues to be just that - a problem. This problem must be faced in any attempt to formulate a system of dynamics since the inertia of a body describes its response to external forces as well as the motion of that body in the absence of forces (and, perhaps more importantly, its motion in the presence and in the absence of other bodies).
    [Show full text]
  • Postprint (333.0Kb)
    An interesting consequence of the general principle of relativity Øyvind Grøn and Torkild Jemterud Oslo and Akershus University College of Applied Sciences, Norway We show that Einstein’s general theory of relativity, together with the assumption that the principle of relativity encompasses rotational motion, predicts that in a flat Friedmann- Lemaitre-Robertson-Walker (FLRW) universe model with dust and Lorentz Invariant Vacuum Energy (LIVE), the density parameter of vacuum energy must have the value 0 0.737 . The physical mechanism connecting the relativity of rotational motion with the energy density of dark energy is the inertial dragging effect. The predicted value is necessary in order to have perfect inertial dragging, which is required for rotational motion to be relative. If one accepts that due to the impossibility of defining motion for a single particle in an otherwise empty universe, the universe must be constructed so that all types of motion are relative, then this solves the so-called cosmological constant problem. 1 Introduction Celebrating that it is now a hundred years since Einstein completed the general theory of relativity, we shall here investigate a consequence of this theory in the spirit of Einstein when he presented the theory in his great article that appeared in the spring 1916 [1]. The extension of the principle of relativity from rectilinear motion with constant velocity to accelerated and rotational motion was an important motivating factor for Einstein when he constructed the general theory of relativity.
    [Show full text]
  • Interpreting Newton
    INTERPRETING NEWTON This collection of specially commissioned essays by leading scholars presents new research on Isaac Newton and his main philosophical inter- locutors and critics. The essays analyze Newton’s relation to his contem- poraries, especially Barrow, Descartes, Leibniz, and Locke, and discuss the ways in which a broad range of figures, including Hume, MacLaurin, Maupertuis, and Kant, reacted to his thought. The wide range of topics discussed includes the laws of nature, the notion of force, the relation of mathematics to nature, Newton’s argument for universal gravitation, his attitude toward philosophical empiricism, his use of “fluxions,” his approach toward measurement problems, and his concept of absolute motion, together with new interpretations of Newton’s matter theory. The volume concludes with an extended essay that analyzes the changes in physics wrought by Newton’s Principia. A substantial introduction and bibliography provide essential reference guides. andrew janiak is Creed C. Black Associate Professor of Philosophy at Duke University. He is the editor of Newton: Philosophical Writings (Cambridge, 2004) and author of Newton as Philosopher (Cambridge, 2008). eric schliesser is BOF Research Professor, Philosophy and Moral Sciences at Ghent University. He has published widely on Newton, Huygens, and their eighteenth-century reception (especially by Hume and Adam Smith) as well as in philosophy of economics. Downloaded from Cambridge Books Online by IP 130.194.20.173 on Fri Nov 02 04:45:13 GMT 2012. http://ebooks.cambridge.org/ebook.jsf?bid=CBO9780511994845 Cambridge Books Online © Cambridge University Press, 2012 INTERPRETING NEWTON Critical Essays Edited by ANDREW JANIAK AND ERIC SCHLIESSER Downloaded from Cambridge Books Online by IP 130.194.20.173 on Fri Nov 02 04:45:13 GMT 2012.
    [Show full text]
  • Some Philowphical Prehistory of General Relativity
    - ----HOWARD STEI N ----- Some Philowphical Prehistory of General Relativity As history, my remarks will form rather a medley. If they can claim any sort of unity (apart from a general concern with space and time), it derives from two or three philosophi<lal motifs: the notion- metaphysical, if you will-of structure in the world, or vera causa; 1 the epistemological princi­ ple of the primacy ofexperience , as touchstone of both the content and the admissibility of knowledge claims; and a somewhat delicate issue of scien­ tific method that arises from the confrontation of that notion and that principle. The historical figures to be touched on are Leibniz, Huygens, Newton; glancingly, Kant; Mach , Helmholtz, and Riemann. The heroes of my story are Newton and Riemann, who seem to me to have expressed (although laconically) the clearest and the deepest views of the matters concerned. The story has no villains; but certain attributions often made to the credit of Leibniz and of Mach will come under criticism. It is well known that Leibniz denied, in some sense, to space the status of a vera ctwsa. Jn what precise sense he intended the denial is perhaps less well known; indeed, as I shall soon explain, I myself consider that sense in some respects difficult if not impossible to determine. The fact !hat Leibniz characterizes space as not "real" but "ideal," or as an "entity of reason" or abstraction, by itself decides nothing; for he also tells us that lhc structure thus abstracted is the structure--or, as he puts it, the "order"- of the situations of coexistent things; furthermore, of the situa­ liuns of all actual or 11ossible coexistent things; or, again (in the fourth lctlcr lo Clarke).
    [Show full text]
  • Ultrahigh Precision Absolute and Relative Rotation Sensing Using Fast and Slow Light
    Ultrahigh Precision Absolute and Relative Rotation Sensing using Fast and Slow Light M.S. Shahriar, G.S. Pati, R. Tripathi, V. Gopal, M. Messall and K. Salit Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering Northwestern University, Evanston, IL 60208 We describe a passive resonator based optical gyroscope whose sensitivity for measuring absolute rotation is enhanced via use of the anomalous dispersion characteristic of superluminal light propagation. The enhancement is given by the inverse of the group index, saturating to a bound determined by the group velocity dispersion. For realistic conditions, the enhancement factor is as high as 108. We also show how normal dispersion used for slow light can enhance relative rotation sensing in a specially designed Sagnac interferometer, with the enhancement given by the slowing factor. PACS numbers: 42.5, 42.50.Ct,42.50.Gy, 42.60.Da Recent experiments have demonstrated very slow as rotation. Recently, Leonhardt and Piwnicki [6] well as superluminal group velocities of light using proposed a slow-light enhanced gyroscope; however, many different processes [1-5]. Extreme dispersion in a they did not point out that this enhancement can not be slow-light medium has been recently considered to achieved when measuring absolute rotation. Later, boost the rotational sensitivity of optical gyroscopes Zimmer and Fleischhauer [9] refuted, incorrectly, the via the Sagnac effect [6]. However, the mechanism by idea of any slow light based sensitivity enhancement in which strong material dispersion affects relativistic rotation sensing, and proposed an alternative hybrid Sagnac effect has remained somewhat controversial. It light and matter-wave interferometer, based on slow is commonly perceived that the Sagnac time delay or light momentum transfer from light to atoms.
    [Show full text]
  • Mach's Principle Revisited James W
    Document généré le 27 sept. 2021 17:34 Laval théologique et philosophique Mach's Principle Revisited James W. Felt Volume 20, numéro 1, 1964 URI : https://id.erudit.org/iderudit/1020052ar DOI : https://doi.org/10.7202/1020052ar Aller au sommaire du numéro Éditeur(s) Laval théologique et philosophique, Université Laval ISSN 0023-9054 (imprimé) 1703-8804 (numérique) Découvrir la revue Citer cet article Felt, J. W. (1964). Mach's Principle Revisited. Laval théologique et philosophique, 20(1), 35–49. https://doi.org/10.7202/1020052ar Tous droits réservés © Laval théologique et philosophique, Université Laval, Ce document est protégé par la loi sur le droit d’auteur. L’utilisation des 1964 services d’Érudit (y compris la reproduction) est assujettie à sa politique d’utilisation que vous pouvez consulter en ligne. https://apropos.erudit.org/fr/usagers/politique-dutilisation/ Cet article est diffusé et préservé par Érudit. Érudit est un consortium interuniversitaire sans but lucratif composé de l’Université de Montréal, l’Université Laval et l’Université du Québec à Montréal. Il a pour mission la promotion et la valorisation de la recherche. https://www.erudit.org/fr/ Mach’s Principle Revisited Greek intellectual curiosity bore philosophy and science as twins, and it was centuries before anyone could tell them apart. It is no surprise, then, that philosophy should have fathered some of modem physics’ most fundamental concepts. One of these has come to be known as Mach’s principle. It began in germ with the epistemology of Bishop Berkeley, was developed by Mach, advocated by Einstein, and today commands considerable attention among physicists.
    [Show full text]
  • Center of Mass and Angular Momentum
    Center of Mass and Angular Momentum (c)2017 van Putten 1 Outline Seesaw balance Anglicisation of French “ci-ça” (back-and-forth); or from "scie" - French for "saw" with Anglo Saxon Center of mass "saw." "scie-saw" became “see saw." (Wikipedia) Force, CM and torque Angular momentum Ice skater - ballerina effect Spinning top Inertial torque Precession Nutation (c)2017 van Putten 2 Center of mass http://www.pbs.org/opb/circus/classroom/circus-physics/center-mass/ (c)2017 van Putten 3 Rotation of center of mass about pivots balanced unbalanced double trouble b' b' b b: horizontal distance CM to pivot (c)2017 van Putten 4 Schematic overview buckling pivot CM (c)2017 van Putten 5 CM defined M 2 M1 CM CM of two bodies is along a line connecting them: M1r1 + M 2r2 = 0 CM is relatively close to the heavy mass (c)2017 van Putten 6 CM defined M q = 2 M 2 M1 Distances to CM: M1 CM M 2 q r1 = r = r M1 + M 2 1+ q M1 1 r r2 = − r = − r 2 M M 1 q r1 1 + 2 + r = r1 − r2 (c)2017 van Putten 7 Balance of seesaw (I) q 1 pivot r = r, r = − r 1 1+ q 2 1+ q Balanced: CM at pivot l l M 2 q = 1: M1 = M 2 pivot M1 CM no net torque, no tendency to rotate (c)2017 van Putten 8 Balance of seesaw (II) Virtual displacement dEi = M igdhi (i = 1,2) pivot Symmetric seesaw: dh1 = −dh2 h1 h2 Zero force from virtual displacements if 0 = dE = dE1 + dE2 = g(M1dh1 + M 2dh2 ) = gdh1 (M1 − M 2 ) No tendency to rotate (in seeking a lowest E) if M1 = M 2 (c)2017 van Putten 9 Imbalanced seesaw CM away from pivot: q < 1: M1 > M 2 (c)2016 van Putten 10 Asymmetric seesaw (I) Pivot coincides
    [Show full text]