finiter

I agree with you. The changes in the location of mercury can be explained using 'Einsteinian Gravity'. However, in my opinion, the relativity theories of Einstein goes against 'reality' (independent and absolute 'space and time'), and so it should be excluded from the domain of physics (maybe, I am wrong). So I try for alternate explanations. The Newtonian gravity, it is held (wrongly or rightly), visualizes static orbits for planets. The actual position may be that 'the force of gravity is countered by the speed (balanced by the speed)', and so the elliptical orbit need not be confined to any particular direction in a plane. Newtons law of gravity is a mathematical law, but we are using it as a physical law. Gravity is now defined based on that mathematical law, and it is this definition that leads us to the conclusion that orbits are static. Gravity should be physically defined: how gravity is created, how bodies interact, what role it has in systems like the nucleus/atoms/solar system/ universe, why it has that particular constant, etc (in the case of magnetic force, we know at least how it is created).

Your argument that multiple dimensions exist is not logical. Mathematically multiple dimensions exist. But in a physical world, there are only three dimensions of space. The building you have referred to is actually three dimensional (you have admitted it). It is impossible to construct a spatially four dimensional structure. Just because there exits a three dimensional projection of a four dimensional mathematical structure, we cannot infer that the real world has four spatial dimensions. If we take the fourth dimension as 'time', then also the situation is mathematical and not physical. The real physical world is always three dimensional, and time is not a dimension that can be regarded in the same way as space. Just because the observations in the real world are in agreement with what you may expect from a mathematically multidimensional model, you cannot say that multiple dimensions exist in the real world ( it is just like the 'physically three dimensional projection' of the the 'mathematically four dimensional structure') . The existence of 'multiple dimensions' may be taken as a possibility; in the absence of any other explanations, it may the most suitable explanation (closest approximation). However, you cannot take it as a fact proved beyond doubt.

Of course, you have not said that the macroscopic word is not real (there are others who argue that it is not real). Then, how can you define that reality? The fact that particles acts in a way consistent with the 'probability wave function description' does not rule out the possibility that particles are spherical. If we take that particles are spherical, then the integration of the particles depends on the question, "How many smaller spheres are required to form a larger sphere that is nearly perfect? It would be logical to assume that the larger particle formed will contain the minimum number required for that, and hence, it will be possible to arrive at the structures of proton and neutron.

The macroscopic world appears to be real. So the question is why it appears to be real. The mainstream physics, as pointed out by you, provides the answer that 'it is the familiarity that makes you think that it is real'. But I would insist that 'the physical world is actually real'. The three dimensional space, the time moving forward, and bodies having mass are all real in all respects. Our sense organs are evolved in this real world, and are designed (by the laws of physics) to act in such a way as to understand the differences (relative) in mass, space and time. The quantum world should also be real, but unfortunately (I would say), the QM is based on the uncertainty principle, which allows a body to remain in two forms at the same instant. That goes against reality. If a body can remain in two forms, 'reality' implies that there should be mechanism for that change and also it should take some time (however small that be). However, instead of explaining the mechanism, QM depends on the unexplained assumption that a particle like electron remains in two different forms at the 'same instant'. So it is not 'what happens in the quantum world' (though we are not familiar with it) that is weird, it is the explanation that is weird. It is the 'unfamiliarity' that has led to the weird explanations. Your idea of 'physical stacking' is a very good to start with for explaining the formation of particles like electron/positron and neutron, and also for electromagnetic radiations. I myself have been trying this method for some time, and I can say it has yielded result. In my model, in place of eather, there is a fundamental particle of matter having mass nearly 10-47Kg.

You have to distinguish between rules and properties. The fallacy of division applies to emergent properties only, not the underlying rules. It is very clear from the example given in the Wikipedia. In an earlier post you have used the term 'not completely deterministic ' to indicate the unpredictability. I have used the word 'some uncertainty' to describe the same situation. So, I agree with your comment, "So, if quantum rules were deterministic, then this means that although the specific behaviours of the macroscopic world might not be predictable from the quantum rules, there still can not be any behaviour that violates these underlying rules. And, since they would be deterministic, that means that the macroscopic world is also deterministic too. There would be no way that randomness could exist (it might be complex and not easily predictable, but it would not be non-deterministic)." This is exactly what I should have stated (to avoid confusion). Relativity is also regarded by some as a classical theory (I have also the same opinion). The inference that we should get gravitational poles, if gravity is a residual force, is not correct. The strength of the force (ie, the constant) decreases as the residual force decreases. So my claim does not go against logic, and I can propose it as a hypotheses. I think you are stretching it too far. At normal levels, we measure length directly, but at quantum level, we measure it indirectly. The direct- indirect distinction (that I have used) is only that much. I stick to my argument: Unless we know the internal structure, any indirect measurement of things at quantum level will not give us the real picture. There is always the possibility that you are having the wrong picture, especially when you use non-classical quantum mechanical model as the 'real picture'.

The 'fallacy of division' cannot be applied here. This is not a case of attributing a special characteristic of 'the whole' to 'the part'; it is the rules leading to that characteristic that we consider. In the example given in the Wikipedia, the individual parts of the Boeing 747 have a role in flying. These roles are deterministic, otherwise the Boeing will not fly. Though the roles of the parts are deterministic, there may be some 'outside' factors, and the Boeing will not be able to fly always; ie, some uncertainty exists. My argument is that the rules at the quantum level are deterministic, but the end result caused by these laws will have some uncertainty. You cannot invoke the the 'fallacy of division', and hence my argument is logical. Count the 'data's, and you will find the macroscopic world (I mean the world at the normal level, and not at the cosmic level) far less deterministic. Let us say there is a residual force; it may be the product of a classical or non-classical effect. Just because the present classical explanation does not suit, we cannot say that no classical explanation is possible. Gravity and magnetic force have many things in common (there can even be a relation between speed and the gravitational constant, I think), but there are differences, especially in the case of direction, because the direction of motion of electron decides the position of magnetic poles. In the case of gravity, the residual force and the constant may decrease as we go to higher levels: from 'constituents of nucleons' - nucleons - atoms - and finally to 'masses of atoms'. We cannot know the reality by indirect measurements, even if it is done thousands of times. You have to know the internal structures to know the reality. If we take the internal structure to be non-classical, then you can interpret the measurements, and modify the non-classical model (non-classical explanation gives more room for maneuvering than classical ones) accordingly, and that will give a fine picture. But that may not be the reality, and that (the fact that the picture you get is fine) does not imply that there cannot be any classical model for the internal structures. I am also of the opinion that the classical model that visualizes particles to have well defined positions and velocities is correct. The uncertainty is due to the indirect measurement, which does not take into consideration the structure at the quantum level. There is more uncertainty at the normal level than at the quantum level. Initially, when the laws governing the physical world at normal levels were not known to us, we resorted to similar 'non-classical' explanations for everything. However, now we know the structures and laws at the normal level to a great extent, and hence do not resort to such 'non-classical' explanations. So we can expect that in future the classical laws will be so changed (without destroying their classical nature) and the structures at the quantum level are well explained (that also in a classical way) such that the 'non-classical' or 'weird' explanations of today just wither away.

I agree with you. The rules of the quantum world may be either deterministic or non-deterministic. If that laws in turn can lead to deterministic laws in the macroscopic world, then it would be more logical to take the laws in the quantum world to be deterministic. It is just logic. If you say that logic has nothing to do here, then it goes against scientific thinking. However, if there is observational evidence which appears to be against that logic, then we have to think of other possibilities. The laws of physics in the macroscopic word are deterministic, but the macroscopic world itself is not completely deterministic (the example you provided earlier is clear). What I argue is that the rules in the quantum world are also deterministic; like the macroscopic world, the quantum world is not completely deterministic, but will be more deterministic than the macroscopic field. By saying that there is no classical explanation, you are closing that door. There may be. For example, gravity may be a residual force of the strong nuclear force; ie, the residual force after the formation of masses of atoms like Earth. So, gravity may be stronger between individual atoms. When the plates are close, it is as if the two plates are trying to merge into one. Once they merge, the attractive force would be very strong. If they simply touch, the force will be less. As the force is between atoms, not between plates, the force decreases rapidly, and 1mm apart, there can still be some attractive gravitational force (which is stronger than the normal gravity) between the atoms in the plates. This is the point where I disagree. The whole of physics should be based on the concept of reality. If the physical world is not real, there is no need to search for any laws. Even for the probability to work, there should be some deterministic basic laws. That is the laws have to make sense.

You have provided a set of three rules; based on these, it is impossible to to know beforehand that a certain emergent behaviour is possible at all. I do agree with that. But the rules are rather arbitrary. Suppose you can create such a set of rules, ie, you can create three cells having that predictable properties. For this, you require some basic rules that give predictable results; then only can you make each cell behave as you have said. So, that basic rules should be not only deterministic, but also should be at least less uncertain in deciding the course of things that lead to your three rules. Therefore, what I think is that uncertainty should decrease as we go to more fundamental (quantum) levels. Here, you have started with an assumption that there is uncertainty in the quantum world. Yes, starting with that uncertainty, you may be able to arrive at a macroscopic world where that uncertainty is not observable. However, even if you start with a deterministic quantum world, you will arrive at the same macroscopic world. Then, why that assumption?

What I suggest is that the force between a proton in one atom and an electron in the neighbouring atom is actually 1837 times the force between two electrons; such a possibility, I think, cannot be ruled out easily. If that is correct, then the size of proton will be proportional to that of electron (with respect to their masses). So, I suggest that the proton consists of electron-positron pairs and an unpaired positron. Inside the atom, the electrostatic force is between the unpaired positron and the electron. In hydrogen atom, at Bohr radius, the sum of electrostatic force (between the positron and the electron) and gravitational force (between the proton and the electron) is equal to the sum of the kinetic energy and the spin energy of electron, and thus the forces remain balanced. Non of the observations (superfluidity, superconductivity, etc.) are weird. Only the explanations are weird; there can be logical explanations (which would be applicable to both the quantum world and normal world). What I have suggested is an attempt in that direction. Your example regarding the computer is really good. However, the strangeness disappears once we know what happens. Not only that, there is no uncertainty in that strange world. It always gives the required display. So the strangeness comes when we do not properly understand the things at the quantum level. As in the case of computer, to get a required display, there should be no uncertainty at the quantum level, and any law that is applicable to the normal world should be applicable to the quantum world. I agree with you, it is misunderstood. The so-called uncertainty at the quantum level, is a myth. There is more uncertainty in the normal world. However, we know the reasons for the uncertainty, and so do not invoke any uncertainty principle in the normal world.

It is held that the quantum world is quite different from the normal physical world. Why should it be? I think the weirdness is due to wrong concepts, and will disappear if we change them as follows. Use mass in place of charge to calculate electrostatic force Change the concept of force utilization IF we use mass, the force between an electron and a proton will be nearly 1837 times the force between two electrons (the constant to be changed using the charge- mass ratio of electron). The immediate consequence is that the size of the proton becomes proportional to that of electron (with respect to mass). I propose that electron/proton has a fixed electrostatic energy. The available electrostatic energy can be used for attraction and repulsion in any ratio. The position of atoms will be such that the force is completely used. Normally, the attractive electrostatic force will be more, and the atoms have to vibrate in such a way that the attractive forces (including gravity) and repulsive forces (including the inertial force due to vibrations/oscillations of atoms) remain balanced. I think that superconductivity, super fluidity, bosanova explosion, etc. can be explained based on these, and hence there is no need to treat the quantum world as something different.

I am very much sure that you know. However, in view of the existing concepts, I can go up to the extent of proposing virtual photons for that increase in energy (not that I am proposing it). My basic idea (I may be wrong) is that laws should be strictly mathematical, but the definitions, physical; a clear line is to be drawn in between the two. The object falls due to gravity; the increase in its speed can be due to the decrease in the internal energy, and if it falls in the field of earth, it is in contact with the atmosphere, and this can cause energy transfer. However, whether it is possible to quantify the increase on the basis of transfer from these sources, or we have to invoke virtual particles again, is something to be verified. Yes, it involves a redefinition of heat, and also a re-description of the physical system. However, the mathematical relation for work holds good (it deals with non real objects); but the physical system responds in physical terms. Suppose energy is defined in this way: Energy is a fundamental quality of matter like mass and volume. This I think will not breach any observational evidence. This is a physical definition. If you want to quantify it, you have to use the mathematical equation for kinetic energy, mv2/2, and say that energy is equal to that, if the whole energy is in the form of motion. If you propose a physical limit, then you can say that the body is made up of fundamental particles which always move at the speed 'c', and so this body can never move faster than 'c'. This energy, I think is the same as that visualized by classical mechanics in terms of mathematical relations. But a change in the physical definition makes it require some alternate explanation for energy transfer. Your statement may appear as if you are suggesting that no body should try to change the definitions. I mean that trying to do something, and achieving the same are entirely different. Achieving is gradual, sometimes you may never achieve. But that need not deter anyone from trying.

Please do not take this as an argument for argument sake (now at this stage it may perhaps appear to be). The relation between work done and energy imparted breaks down when the speed approaches 'c'. I think such a tendency exists even under normal circumstances. The work done is work done; there is no change in the definition of work. The energy that the body gains due to the work done on it will be proportional to the work done only for small changes that can be accommodated by realignment of the energy already available (say the internal energy decreases and the speed increases). If the energy of the body is to increase continuously, the body has to draw in energy from the surroundings. Surely one will have to redefine matter, energy and force to start with and subsequently some other terms also. However, the changed definitions should always be in conformity with the observations. I think it is not a task impossible; but problems may arise at each step. The opening post was just to make clear whether my understanding of the existing concepts has flawed any where. And, I say it was very useful till this time..

No, it does not go against observational evidence. In the case of force acting at distance, what is observed is what you have said: "adds or subtracts from the energy present". The explanation 'how that happens' may be different. In the case of a body moving in a gravitational field, when the speed changes, there may be a corresponding change in its internal energy. The force or work done causes that change, but does not impart energy on its own ( a possibility that seems logical). Regarding the rest of the part I agree, and actually I have developed a self consistent model, which may or may not be correct. I do agree with the rest of the comments (other than what I have quoted from you). I think one can always think of an alternate explanation (I have been doing it for the past many years), and that in itself is not a problem. The only condition is that it should not go against the observational evidence. That is, one can redefine heat, work and energy, provided the definitions do not go against observations and cover all aspects.

Maybe. But it does not go against observational evidence. Without tampering with the observational evidence, we can always try out the possibility of an alternate explanation. I used the word logical only to that extent.

In my opinion, any physical quantity should be physically defined. It must be followed by a mathematical relation. In the case of entropy, there is no clear physical definition. I think, entropy can be defined as the energy possessed by the individual constituents of the system, ie, the internal energy of the system (excluding the internal energies of the individual constituents).

Your explanation is very clear: ie, though the larger container can have higher internal energy, that cannot fully account for the heat removed after compression, and so, some energy has to be put into it; this comes from the work done. My argument is only that the force applied cannot on its own impart energy, some other source has to be identified. However, in this case, the internal energy cannot be the source. In the case of mechanical compression, it may be possible to point out other sources. Anyway, calling the heat capacity of the system as the 'heat energy' of the system, I think, is logical.

Length, area, volume, mass, time, temperature, colour, charge, etc. are the physical properties exhibited by matter. Each can be regarded as a separate dimension of the object under reference. However, all of these can be expressed in terms of length, mass and time (L,M and T). Space is L3. Space-time is L3T, what it should represent is the time varying space (volume), but whether it is used in the same sense or not is not clear. Something requiring L4, L5, etc. to represent it, does not refer to volume, it can refer to some arrangement in space. So terming the dimensions as 1st, 2nd, 3rd etc. is meaningless (in my opinion)

That is, the larger container can have a higher internal energy than the smaller container having the same amount of gas (both being at the same temperature), and hence my suggestion that compression does not impart energy, but only causes some changes in the system, may be a correct interpretation.

That is where I speculate. Newtons laws, including the gravitational law, were taken as physical laws and the present terminology is based on that. Actually these are mathematical laws. So it requires a new terminology based on physical properties of bodies. Physics has thus deviated from the right direction from the time of Newton. By changing that direction, it is possible to arrive at the theory of everything.

So starting from the beginning: What I proposed was that the larger container can have a higher internal energy, though the temperature and the amount of matter is the same. The temperature neither represents the heat capacity nor the internal energy. The temperature does not represent the internal kinetic energy as well. The temperature is an indicator of the intensity of its potential state. The heat capacity can be regarded as the potential energy; however, the same heat capacity can create different intensities in different atoms. During reactions, internal energies of atoms are not released. Now, the answer to your questions: The molecular configurations ( I mean the vibratory modes only) will be different because the heat capacities and the internal energies are different, but the ratio between heat capacity and internal energy can be the same (being at the same temperature). Now let us bring two similar containers containing the reactant, which we assume to be gaseous. The internal energy of the two larger containers, one containing the reactant and the other containing the original gas that we have, will be different though they are at the same temperatures. Assuming that the two containers are interconnected and the reaction proceeds fully, the only thing left behind will be the product, which we again assume to be a gas. For this, the internal energy of the product should be less than the reactants at any given temperature. Naturally, after reaction, the product in the interconnected containers will be at a higher temperature. The same will be the case with the smaller container also. The only difference will be the heat capacities of the product at two different temperatures. The heat capacity being higher in the smaller one, the heating effect will be less in it and so the reaction will be faster.

I do agree with you, except with the argument that the model will fail ultimately. In the case of mechanical work, the bodies are in contact, and so the energy may be coming from the surroundings. Whether the energy comes from the surroundings or is imparted by the mechanical force, the energy is conserved. There is just a minor change in how the situation is viewed. But in the case of force acting at a distance, for example, the earth- moon system, I propose that gravitational force does not impart any energy to the moon either in the form of virtual gravitons or in any other way. Any change in the speed of the moon is due to transfer of energy from inside the moon. I agree that if we change anything arbitrarily in the model, the model will fail, either immediately or in some other area which is not immediately visible. So the changes should come in a package to cover all the areas. The proposal that force does not impart energy is part of such a package, the basic assumption being energy is a finite quality of matter like mass and volume. What I have said about the second law is correct for the first law also. It is also purely mathematical. The first law does not say anything about the nature of a physical body such as: whether a physical body can remain at rest; whether the body, if left alone, will move along a straight line; whether the body can attain the speed of light; etc. I think Newton considered it to be primarily mathematical, otherwise he would not have termed it 'pricipia mathematica'. However, Newton's laws can be used to calculate the effect of motion and forces, but the inherent physical nature of the bodies have to be separately defined. Newton's laws being mathematical can never be violated, whether the speed is zero or greater than zero. Any observation that seems to violate Newton's laws is consequent on the interpretation that Newton's laws are physical. Any moving body has gravity, and gravity will always be acting.

The relation, F = ma, is primarily a mathematical relation between force and energy. I agree. But when you say this relation says something about bodies, ie, a property of the bodies, then we can say that force imparts energy to bodies. But if you take the mathematical and the physical parts separately (that is what I suggest), then in my opinion, the mathematical part is correct, but the physical part requires some additional information. Where does the energy come from? Force has only a mathematical definition. This being a speculative forum, I can argue, the mathematical relation is correct, but the mathematical definition is wrong. Force cannot impart energy, but if energy is made available, the body will follow the proposed relation. The concept of force is simple. But in physics, force has only a mathematical definition. Being a speculative forum, I say that definition is wrong, though the mathematical relation is valid provided we supply enough energy. Based on my theory, real forces like gravity, electrostatic force and magnetic force exists as a reaction to the energy possessed. Energy possessed acts as a pseudo force.

It is very difficult to answer this straight forward question. My earlier question (where does the energy come from?) is relevant here also. In my view, during chemical reactions internal energies of atoms are not released, but there is only a realignment of the external energies. It is just like this: the two gases when mixed align themselves as molecules, and the heat part and the rest have a different ratio. If the heat part increases, the temperature increases, and this shows that the product requires only less energy to remain at the original temperature. The extra energy can be siphoned out. My earlier proposal that force cannot impart energy cannot be taken in isolation; it is indeed a part of a package. I am suggesting (maybe it is wrong) that instead of dividing the internal energy as kinetic and potential, you may divide it as heat part and the rest. In that case, if you say the temperature is 100K, then you know that it has more internal energy than it would possess if it were at 90K, the rest of the conditions being the same. If you know the specific heat, you can have an approximate idea of heat part. The temperature is not at all an indicator of internal energy. For a different gas, the same internal energy will give you a different temperature. That is, internal energy is something that we do not measure.

For argument sake, I would say that it is the specific heat part that provides the information about temperature ( I am suggesting that there is heat energy which depends on specific heat and temperature). Temperatures above 0K indicate hot states; increase in internal energy causes heating, but temperature is not proportional to the increase in internal energy. The volume is a deciding factor; if it increases freely, temperature does not increase, if increase in volume is highly restricted, the temperature increases considerably. In our case, to heat by one degree you have to compress both the containers. The work to be done for this will not be equal; the smaller container requires more work. However, according to my version, the work done does not impart any energy to the containers. It is a self limiting process; to heat it by another one degree the work done will be more than that. The reply to the remaining parts will follow. That was an arbitrary condition, and your explanation regarding it was logical and I agree that based on existing concepts your explanations are correct. This is just another possibility put forth to spin1/2, as a response to his question.

I am not questioning the mathematical representation of force and energy. Force may not be having a non-mathematical definition. However, these are strictly mathematical. I am questioning the physical part of it. From where does this energy come physically? The energy for the increase/decrease in the speed can be adjusted due to the thermodynamic change involving the internal energy and speed of the body. For example, in the case of the two containers, I would propose that the larger container has a higher energy. When you compress it, it reaches a hot potential state, its energy remaining the same (the work done on it does not alter its energy in any way, but just changes its state). You remove this hotness by cooling it, ie, removing some energy. So the smaller container is at the same temperature as the larger one and has a lower energy. Here, the energy removed is already present in the larger container ( we have not measured the actual energy of the gas, we know the intensity of its potential state or temperature, which I think is not a measure of its energy). The compression (the work done) did not impart any energy to the container. I think my view does not go against the mathematical equations.