C.F. Gauss, being already by famous mathematician, almost at the end of
the life has mused upon consequences of a finite of velocity of
interaction on distance. After 15 years of meditations and the operations
he derived in 1835 the law of interacting forces depending upon mutual
velocity of interacting bodies (for the particle – particle
electrodynamics) [1].
The great mathematician, he has appeared also ingenious physicist. He
reasoned as follows. If the velocity of propagation is finite, therefore,
interacting bodies moving with velocity of interaction relatively each
other, can not interact, as the potential of interaction from each body
can not reach another, i.e. will delay completely. It means that the
unknown laws on the dependence of the interacting forces from velocity of
interacting bodies exist. More over we know two extreme cases of this law.
The first case of the law is when the relative velocity of interacting
bodies is equal to zero, and thus the law of interaction is the Coulomb's
law. The second case is when the reciprocal velocity of bodies is equal to
velocity of interaction, and then the force of interaction is equal to
zero. It was principal logical basis, imaginary simulation of statuses of
the matter's motion fixed in the mathematical form. It was a vast step
forward in comparison with pure Galilean – Newtonian empiricism.
The new mechanism methodology of physics arose in entrails of the
scientific world from whirlwinds of Descartes, in searches of mechanisms
of interactions of Lomonosov and Lessazh, in wave theories of light of the
Huygens, Young, Fresnel and another. And then one was ripped by a powerful
flow in activities of the Gauss, Maxwell, Helmholtz, B'erkness,
Hertz...
The majority of these works was created with the help "of mental
simulation of a status of movement of an ether" (Maxwell). Can we assert
after that the ether has served as a "scaffolding" for creation of
theories and we can take away this scaffolding? No, we can not. It was
"material", "base" and "frame" for construction of physics! Remove ether,
and all will fail. How possible is it to assert what without ether there
is a whirlwind (rot) or inflation (div)? Or how possible is it to simulate
interaction of bodies without ether?
The methodology of a relativity theory with its postulates and refusal
from determinism, from mental notion of movement of a matter (refusal from
"narrow – minded" common sense), from a causality and with transmission to
mathematics of the physics function, was step back in relation to Galilean
– Newtonian empiricism. Not to say anything about mechanical theories
based on simulation of processes.
The relativity theory has corrupted minds of the researchers, has
disaccustomed them to think, to analyze, to search and to doubt. It is
enough for the new theory to invent two – three postulates and mathematics
will make all remaining.
Mathematics is language of physics. However even mathematicians
permanently speak us that mathematics is grindstone: what you'll put –
that you'll grind. Mathematician Gauss understood it. The modern
physicists do not understand it. Have a look in the scientific physical
magazines, and you will see infinite mathematical researches there, which
are carrying on in anywhere.
Gauss has died, not having had time to publish, may be, principal work
in his life. His young friend, former colleague on Goettingen (Germany),
Weber should made it for him. However we shall not speak now about the
ethical side of matter. Nevertheless, after becoming famous, Weber
published Gauss' elaboration in his complete works. Understood all
importance of Gauss' investigations, Weber inferred his law of the delayed
potential having taken as a basis only empiric law of Ampere for two
interacting conductors with current. He made it without understanding of
the physical nature, without the modeling of process of interaction,
without mental notion of process of the potential lag.
Weber has ignored a principal phrase of Gauss in the letter to him. The
most subsequent physicists have not paid the special attention to it too.
Firstly, Gauss has informed Weber that he inferred this law from mental
simulation of the mechanism of interaction. Though "...(he) could not make
precise imagine about the propagation of electrodynamics action from one
particle to another". Secondly, primarily realized and logically justified
Gauss introduced in his equation the notion of the velocity of
interaction that he has equated to velocity of light (and it was long
before Poincare!)
Though Weber, have known about that from Gauss, he introduced the
velocity of light as a conversion factor from the electrostatic metering
system of units to electrodynamic one and, thus, hides from scientific
community depth sense of the law, having presented it for a formalism.
Formalism of Weber [2] was enthusiastically assimilated only because
one linked electrical phenomena to velocity of light. But the destiny has
played a malicious joke with him just for that. Two great physicists,
Helmholtz and Maxwell, have perceived a formalism of Weber as the law of a
long-range action in an electrodynamics (you see, coefficient is not
velocity of propagation!) and have acted with its sharp criticism.
Helmholtz has seen in the law of Weber a violation of law of
conservation of energy. And it is fair, since the delay of a potential in
itself means incomplete realization of spent energy instantly, and with
some lateness. Recollect "energy of interaction already has left one body,
but yet has not reached another"! (Maxwell).
The error of Helmholtz is "very well made out" by him in the foreword
to the book of a Hertz "Principles of the mechanics stated in new link"
[3]. He writes: "the Laws of an electrodynamics were derived from a
hypothesis of Weber, which tried to reduce an explanation of electrical
and magnetic phenomena to a certain modification of Newtonian supposition
about forces, directly and rectilinearly operating on distance... In a
hypothesis of Weber the supposition was made, that the distribution of
this force in infinite space occurs instantly to infinite velocity...
F. Neumann, his son K. Neumann, Rimann, and Grossmann advanced the
similar hypotheses. Later Clausius did so... Clear outputs did not follow
this mixed assembly of hypotheses at all. It was necessary to resort to
complicated calculations, to decomposition of separate forces on their
variously directed components etc. So the sphere of an electrodynamics has
turned into desert without roads in that time. The facts based on
observations, and consequence from the rather doubtful theories – all this
was combined pell-mell among themselves."
What great mistake, what terrible intolerant critic! And it is all only
because Weber has hidden consideration of Gauss... But where is analytical
mind of Helmholtz itself?!
The Maxwell, unlike Helmholtz, after acquaintance with work of Gauss
completely has reconsidered his positions. At the end of "Treatise about
an electricity..." [4] he devotes the whole chapter to the laws of Gauss
and Weber. Where he, at first, shows, that both laws are derived from the
law of an Ampere, in the same way. Secondly, both laws are a consequence
of a short-range picture. In third, they conform to electrodynamics on the
whole. But equations of the Maxwell have already darkened the laws of
Gauss and Weber, and they unfairly were left in a shade.
Complete or nearly complete rehabilitation of the laws of delayed
potential has taken place only in middle of 20 centuries in works of
Feynman [5]. He has shown, that formulas of delay of a potential "cover
principle of operation of generators of a current and feature of behavior
of light i.e., all phenomena of an electricity and magnetism are
present in his work on these law... The formula of delay of a
potential gives the complete and exact description of process of
radiation; it cover even all relativistic effects". Feynman used a
delaying potential in work on a quantum electrodynamics.
However now road to a delayed potential was closed by a formalism of
the relativity theory which has perverted all principal concepts and
ideals of a classical mechanics and has substituted law of delay of a
potential by its artifice – fourth coordinate of a space-time...
The laws of Gauss and Weber do not take into account movement of
interacting particles, as well as the equations of Maxwell – movement of
electromagnetic systems, relatively an ether, therefore inconsistencies
with experiments arise at movement of particles relatively an ether. A
Hertz corrected the equations of the Maxwell; the law of Weber is
corrected by Clausius.
In 1892 at elaboration of the electronic theory [6] (the
electrodynamics of particle – field) Lorentz synthesized two approaches.
The first approach is Maxwell's one for expression of an electrical and
magnetic field. The second approach is the law of the delay potential in
Clausius' form [7]. He (Lorenz) has obtained the famous formula of
interaction of an electron with an electromagnetic field, which one all we
use now with success.
Thus, we have three equivalent electrodynamics: the Weber – Clausius'
(particle – particle), Lorentz' (particle – field) and Maxwell – Hertz'
(field – field).
The law of the Gauss requires the special consideration, since. The
Maxwell not incidentally has shown equal rights of the laws of Gauss and
Weber, having derived them both from the formula of Ampere. If we accept
conclusion of Umov [8] that the flux of energy from a body is necessary
for existence of a potential energy, the law of Gauss in this case could
be found just. If we accept existence of a potential energy as initially
given property, an infringement of the law of conservation of energy at
movement on orbit appears in the law of Gauss. In this case law of Weber
is just.
However the mechanism methodology of Gauss is magnificent because it
allows finding the law of delay of a potential at any interaction (even by
transmission of pressure in pipes) as well as at gravitation too.
I shall not tell about efforts of many scientists, which have obtained
the laws of gravitation with delay of a potential. Their correspondence
discussion was instructive and very interesting. Among them it is possible
to see familiar names: the Maxwell, Poincare, Larmour, Clausius... And
already forgotten: Riemann, Ritz, Seegers, Levi and many others.
The Maxwell tried to apply the mechanism methodology of Gauss, but has
failed, as could not create any efficient theory of the mechanism of
gravitation. "Being unable to understand, how the medium can have such
properties, I can not advance further in this direction in searches of
reasons of a gravitation" he has written.
But the man was found, which one has bypassed difficulties of
simulation of the mechanism of interaction. The name of this man was Paul
Gerber the teacher from Stargard. In article [9], published in 1898, he
expressed the thought of a Newton that the action between bodies should be
transferred through the medium. And here he makes conclusion, that
velocity of interaction can not be indefinitely high and depends on
properties of medium. If it so, the lag of potential can not be local; it
is distributed on all distance between bodies. From here Gerber make
conclusion that it is possible to introduce the inversely proportionality
of a potential, depended from velocity of mass, in the standard equation
of Lagrange. Thus he has obtained the law of interaction with a delaying
potential (like Weber's law containing three terms).
The first term is something, as Newtonian law of universal gravitation;
the second term is value of decrease of force of interaction from
velocity; and third term is gravitational waves, which should be radiated
at acceleration of bodies. Like in Weber's law, here distance between
interacting bodies is the scalar quantity. The delay of a potential occurs
only in the event if the first derivative of distance on time is not equal
to zero (distance changes along a line conditionally connecting
interacting bodies). And the radiation of waves occurs, if second
derivative of distance on time is not equal to zero too. Besides it is
visible from the formula, that the lag of a potential is of the second
order of smallness, i.e. depends on a square of velocity of a body divided
by a square of velocity of interaction. That reminds of Lorentz'
factor.
Gerber, as well as Gauss, has derived that interaction of bodies is
carried out through ether, and the ether is the light-carrying medium. He
has made the conclusion, that the velocity of interaction is equal to
velocity of light (by analogy with the sound velocity in air is equal to
the velocity of the pressure transference). Having substituted velocity of
light instead of velocity of interaction, he has obtained abnormal offsets
of perihelions of all planets, including moon, which corresponds to
observable events.
Thus, we see that the classic mechanics with its invariant of space,
time and mass was on correct path and solved all arising problems. There
was no necessity neither in fourth coordinate of space – time nor, in
geometry of Riemann, nor in the pseudoeuclidean geometry of Minkowski, nor
in tensor calculations, nor in a heaping of paradoxes and in waiving
common sense...
Simulating the process of delay of a potential, I have found out, that
the lag occurs non-uniformly and is realized in "pulsatory" movement of a
body. Calculating frequency and length of "pulsatory" oscillations, I have
obtained the formula of de Broglie and have found that for gravitation and
the electrodynamics exist different constants for dependence of energy of
movement on frequency. Therefore, I have come out on a wave quantum
mechanics both for electromagnetic, and for gravitational interactions.
And it, in turn, speaks that the delayed potential has not told its last
word yet.
The literature:
C.F. Gauss. Transactions, v. 5, Royal science foundation,
Goettingen, 1867.
W. Weber. Werke, Vol. 4, 247...299, Springer, Berlin, 1894.
H. Helmholtz. The foreword to the book of H. Hertz
"Principles of the mechanics which have been set up in new
communication". SCI. USSR, 1959, page 296. In Russian.
J.C. Maxwell. The treatise on an electricity and magnetism,
v. 2., Science, M., 1989, page 370. In Russian.
Feynman R.P., Leigton R.B., Sands M. The Feynman lectures
on Physics. v. 3, p. 39, 1963. In Russian.
H.A. Lorentz. The electronic theory. Leiden, 1892.
R. Clausius. Ableitung eines neuen elektrodynamischen
Grundgesetzes. J. Reine angew. Math., 82, s. 85...130, 1877.
N.A. Umov. The selected works. M-L., 1950. In Russian.
Gerber P. Die räumliche und zeitliche Ausbreitung der
Gravitation. Z. Math. Phys., v. 43, p. 93...104, 1898.
Is published earlier:
"Science of Kazakhstan", 5 (65), March 1...15,
1996.
Знаете ли Вы, что такое "Большой Взрыв"? Согласно рупору релятивистской идеологии Википедии "Большой взрыв (англ. Big Bang) - это космологическая модель, описывающая раннее развитие Вселенной, а именно - начало расширения Вселенной, перед которым Вселенная находилась в сингулярном состоянии. Обычно сейчас автоматически сочетают теорию Большого взрыва и модель горячей Вселенной, но эти концепции независимы и исторически существовало также представление о холодной начальной Вселенной вблизи Большого взрыва. Именно сочетание теории Большого взрыва с теорией горячей Вселенной, подкрепляемое существованием реликтового излучения..." В этой тираде количество нонсенсов (бессмыслиц) больше, чем количество предложений, иначе просто трудно запутать сознание обывателя до такой степени, чтобы он поверил в эту ахинею. На самом деле взорваться что-либо может только в уже имеющемся пространстве. Без этого никакого взрыва в принципе быть не может, так как "взрыв" - понятие, применимое только внутри уже имеющегося пространства. А раз так, то есть, если пространство вселенной уже было до БВ, то БВ не может быть началом Вселенной в принципе. Это во-первых. Во-вторых, Вселенная - это не обычный конечный объект с границами, это сама бесконечность во времени и пространстве. У нее нет начала и конца, а также пространственных границ уже по ее определению: она есть всё (потому и называется Вселенной). В третьих, фраза "представление о холодной начальной Вселенной вблизи Большого взрыва" тоже есть сплошной нонсенс. Что могло быть "вблизи Большого взрыва", если самой Вселенной там еще не было? Подробнее читайте в FAQ по эфирной физике.
