Перейти в начало сайта Перейти в начало сайта
Электронная библиотека «Наука и техника»
n-t.ru: Наука и техника
Home Page / Current publications / Scientific hypotheses
Home Page / Current publications / Scientific hypotheses

Научные статьи

Физика звёзд

Физика микромира

Журналы

Природа

Наука и жизнь

Природа и люди

Техника – молодёжи

Нобелевские лауреаты

Премия по физике

Премия по химии

Премия по литературе

Премия по медицине

Премия по экономике

Премия мира

Книги

Биологически активные

Доктор занимательных наук

Обычное в необычном (Энциклопедия чудес. Книга первая)

Популярная информатика

Приключения великих уравнений

Химия вокруг нас

Издания НиТ

Батарейки и аккумуляторы

Охранные системы

Источники энергии

Свет и тепло

Научно-популярные статьи

Наука сегодня

Научные гипотезы

Теория относительности

История науки

Научные развлечения

Техника сегодня

История техники

Измерения в технике

Источники энергии

Наука и религия

Мир, в котором мы живём

Лит. творчество ученых

Человек и общество

Образование

Разное

The theories of mechanisms of interaction and hypothesis about their synthesis

Nikolay Noskov
Translated from Russian by Jury Sarychev

The majority of the modern scientists fallen under "charm" of a relativity theory undertake infinite attempts to decipher, to improve, to correct it, to prove its accuracy and to convince others that physics develops in right direction. The totals of these efforts are appearance of thesises on a near relativistic subject, about which anybody never learns, except for a very small number of persons. Where are names of scientists, who within centuries supported and developed a Ptolemy system of the World construction?!.. Minority, having crashed scientific career because of critical attitude to dominant views and having understood a uselessness of such kind of activity silently leave science. And only some of them somewhere at the end of the life languidly will utter, languidly protesting, or punning: "In theory of relativity secret of a gravitation is explained by a riddle of a bending of a space-time" (Mac-Witty) [1]. "GTR suffers by profound contradictions and severe lacks, one of which is a non-physical essence of a gravitational field" (Stanjukovich) [2].

It is necessary to understand that "physical essence" is mechanism causality within the framework of common sense, which one, in turn, has profound philosophical sense and definition of which one includes such concept, as severe scientific logic.

About that in a relativistic physics the logic is infringed, speaks much. One of examples: "In a classic mechanics of a Newton the interaction of bodies with the help of a potential energy is assumed as instantaneous propagation of interactions" (Yavorsky, Detlaf. The quick Reference on physics for the engineers and students of institutes) [3]. If it is not special gossip, it is a rough logic error,so far as the absence of velocity of interaction in the laws of a mechanics at all does not mean its instantaneity. In a relativistic physics also so there is no concept of velocity of interaction, however it does not hinder to relativists to assert about presence at it short-range interactions only on the ground that there is an ungrounded restriction of velocity of bodies, equal velocity of light.

The researchers who have refused from the relativistic theory, and them with every day are become ever more suddenly find out, how much the physicists of pre-Einsteinian epoch have made. What powerful basethey have prepared for development of physics, and as miserably the relativistic physics looks on its background. A vivid example is the mechanism theory in physics. The great set of such theories was created for very short (on historical sense) term – since 1780 till 1890. In the offered below article the speech will go about mechanisms of interactions as most important and greatest riddle of the nature.

Attempts to understand essence of gravitation were undertaken during centuries. Especially fixed attention of the researchers to this mystery of nature has appeared after printing of "The Beginnings..." of a Newton in 1687. But, to put forward an appropriate hypothesis, there were in that time no premises and reasons. The majority of sciences, by means of with it are possible to create the analogy or the mechanism theory, have appeared much later. With appearance of thermodynamics, molecular physics, aerodynamics and hydrodynamics etc ground arose for advance of hypotheses (there was a set of them) about mechanisms of interaction. Having been grounded on the logically and strictly well founded simulation of processes and mechanisms as well as on experimental data, three mode of interaction, really can exist in the nature (certainly, at existence of universal medium – ether).

It is the "screen" theory, which one has appeared first and was revealed triply. At first in Russia, in 1748 – Lomonosov [4]; then in 1782 – Swiss scientist Lessag [5]; in 1883 it was revived by W. Thomson [6] and has got in a center of attention of world community. Many famous scientists of century: the Maxwell, Poincare, Darvin, Tunzelmann, Preston, Izenkrae, Yarolimek, Bok etc. participated in discussion of it.

The theory of screens assumes that all universal space is filled by smallest particles (ether), which are moving chaotic in all directions with high speeds. The particle bombards a single body in such space from different directions equally. Two bodies are screens for particles, faced to these bodies on a line by their connecting. There is a difference of pressure by particles outside and from inside, and from inside it is less, that is why the bodies are pressed down to each other (are attracted).

The mechanism of screens looks deceptively simple for calculations so far as it is rather obvious, and it is easy to show, that the law of interaction derived from it is the law of reverse squares, as well as law of universal gravitation. However set of values which are included in these calculations, are unknown, and among them: mass of particles of ether, their velocity, density, free length etc., that has resulted in set of incorrect conclusions and objections against the theory.

The pulsation theory – most demonstrative and effective – has arisen approximately in 1856, in transactions of Norwegian physicist Bjerknes [7].

...The pulsating bodies transmit oscillations via ether. The oscillations from two bodies, adding in space, create a difference of impulses which influence on bodies, outside and from inside, causing bodies either to be attracted, or to be repelled, that depends, how the bodies pulse: in a phase or in an antiphase.

For the demonstration of experiments with pulsated rubber spheres placed at a bath with a liquid, Bjerknes was awarded with the diploma of international jury at the Parisian electrical exhibition.

The Englishman Cooke [8] (1882) has used cylinders instead of spheres, with the help of which he modeled electrical, magnetic and diamagnetic phenomena. There is one more experimenter, Guthrje [9] (1870) have demonstrated experiment on attraction and repulsion of oscillating tuning forks.

Cambridge astronomer Challis [10] (1859), then Hicks [11] and Leahy [12] (1880) and, at last Burton [13] in 1909 have attempted to make the theoretical substantiation of the pulsation theory of interaction. It is considered that in transactions of Burton the English pulsation school of interaction has achieved the best outcome.

The modern scientists continue to elaborate the pulsation and screen theories too.

The theory "of sources – drains of a ether" (below mentioned as drains) has arisen from observations of interaction of two driving ships (Riemann [14], 1853) and it was theoretically justified by the Pearson [15, 16, 17, 18] in 1891. The initial idea of century jets of ether in space was step-by-step transformed. At first it appears as notion about jets of ether as a dynamic mock-up of atom (in transactions of the Pearson), then a source of jets became an electron and all fundamental particles (in transactions [19] (1906)).

Stanjukovich have made the experiment on idea of in 1958 [20]. In two hollow sphere with set of small-sized holes was blown up with air. The effluxion of air from holes in spheres causes origin of attraction of spheres.

About synthesis of mechanism of interaction. All above described mechanisms of interaction result in the law of reverse squares, similarly to the universal law of gravitation of a Newton, or Coulomb's law and quite can really exist in the nature. It is possible to suspect that all of them are realized in the nature simultaneously.

In theory of screens it is meant, that the free length of particles of ether should be more than distance between bodies (otherwise mechanism not act). That such condition was kept for planets, it is necessary, that the free length of particles of ether was equal to millions kilometers. At such free length density of ether can not be sufficient to play a role the light-carrying medium, and mass of particles of a ether at velocity, equal velocity of light, should be macrosize for fulfillment of conditions of the law of attraction. In that case, most probably to suspect, that the screen mechanism executes a role of a nuclear interaction, and radius of its operation is equal approximately 10–13 m, that removes the above named objections. Besides, becomes obvious, that the screen mechanism is inapplicable to gravitation also owing to sharp limitation of its radius of action by a free length of particles of ether, while in the nature of such limitation is not watched. And on the contrary, the nuclear interaction has sharp limitation by the above-stated size (the short-range picture).

The pulsation mechanism is well entered in the script of operation of electromagnetic forces, as available all set of features describing electromagnetic interaction (experiments of Cooke). Distance of such interactions is more than the mean free length of particles of ether. Therefore, screen mechanism already misses, and acts only pulsation and drains. The portional emitting of ether as outcome of a constitution of fundamental particles (for example, the spiral – shaped vortex) can serves as a generator of pulsation.

And, at last, mechanism of drains of ether can serve as a gravitational interaction. Operation of this mechanism is total flux of ether from all fundamental particles. There are no oscillations of separate particles in this flux so far as they already have got mixed up and have been smoothed out.

The offered hypothesis removes a problem on the mechanism of a dragging of ether by bodies (Fresnel, Stokes), the difficulty of the proof of which has resulted Lorentz and Einstein in waiving this theory, and then in general to waiving ether. The dragging of ether by bodies should serve by proof of a distortion of light beams near to massive bodies (through a convex lens of ether).

At first the review of the theories of mechanism of interactions was made by Taylor [21] in 1876, then was proceeded by Zenneck [22] in 1903 and Stallo [23] in 1960.

 

The literature:

  1. G.K. Mak-Vitty. A general theory of relativity and cosmology. Publishing house of the foreign literature, M., 1961. In Russian.
  2. K.P. Stanjukovich. A gravitational field and fundamental particles. Science, M., 1965. In Russian.
  3. B.M. Yavorsky, A.A. Detlaf. The quick reference on physics for the engineers and students of institutes. Science, M., 1974. In Russian.
  4. M.V. Lomonosov. About relation of quantity of a matter and weigt. The full collected works, v. 3. AcSci USSR, M. – L., 1952. In Russian.
  5. LeSag. The kinetic theory of gravitation. 1782. In: N.T. Rousver. A perihelion of a Mercury from Leverje up to an Einstein. World, M., 1985, page 133...138. In Russian.
  6. W. Thomson. On the ultramundane corpuscles of LeSage. Phil. Mag. (Ser. 4), 45, 1873, p. 321...332. In: N.T. Rousver. A perihelion of a Mercury from Leverje up to an Einstein. World, M., 1985, page 133. In Russian.
  7. Bjerknes. The pulsation theory of gravitation. 1856. In: N.T. Rousver. A perihelion of a Mercury from Leverje up to an Einstein. World, M., 1985, page 125. In Russian.
  8. C. Cooke. Bjerknes's Hydrodynamiral experiments. Engineering, 33, 1882, p. 23...25, 147...148, 191...192. In: N.T. Rousver. A perihelion of a Mercury from Leverje up to an Einstein. World, M., 1985, page 125. In Russian.
  9. F. Guthrje. On approach caused by vibration. Phil. Mag., 39, p. 309, 40, p. 345...354, 1870. In: N.T. Rousver. A perihelion of a Mercury from Leverje up to an Einstein. World, M., 1985, page 125. In Russian.
  10. Challis. The force of gravity. Phil. Mag. (Ser. 4), 18, p. 442-451, 1859. In: N.T. Rousver. A perihelion of a Mercury from Leverje up to an Einstein. World, M., 1985, page 125...126. In Russian.
  11. W. M. Hicks. On the problem of two pulsating spheres in a fluid. Proc. Camb. phil. Soc., 3, p. 276...285, 1880. In: N.T. Rousver. A perihelion of a Mercury from Leverje up to an Einstein. World, M., 1985, page 126...129. In Russian.
  12. H. Leahy. On the pulsations of spheres in an elastic medium. Trans. Camb. Phil. Soc., 14, 45...62, 1889. In: N.T. Rousver. A perihelion of a Mercury from Leverje up to an Einstein. World, M., 1985, page 128. In Russian.
  13. V. Burton. A modified theory of gravitation. Phil. Mag. (Ser. 6), 17, 71...113, 1909. In: N.T. Rousver. A perihelion of a Mercury from Leverje up to an Einstein. World, M., 1985, page 129...130. In Russian.
  14. Riemann. In: N.T. Rousver. A perihelion of a Mercury from Leverje up to an Einstein. World, M., 1985, page 130. In Russian.
  15. K. Pearson. On the motion the spherical and ellipsoidal bodies in fluid media. Q. J. Pure appl. Math., 20, p. 184...211, 1885. In: N.T. Rousver. A perihelion of a Mercury from Leverje up to an Einstein. World, M., 1985, page 130...132. In Russian.
  16. K. Pearson. On a certain atomic hypothesis. Part II. Prc. London math., 20, p. 38...63, 1888...1889. In: N.T. Rousver. A perihelion of a Mercury from Leverje up to an Einstein. World, M., 1985, page 130...132. In Russian.
  17. K. Pearson. On a certain atomic hypothesis. Trans. Camb. Soc., 14, p. 71...120, 1889. In: N.T. Rousver. A perihelion of a Mercury from Leverje up to an Einstein. World, M., 1985, page 130...132. In Russian.
  18. K. Pearson. Ether squirts. Am. J. Math., 13, p. 309...362, 1891. In: N.T. Rousver. A perihelion of a Mercury from Leverje up to an Einstein. World, M., 1985, page 130...132. In Russian.
  19. G. A. Schott. On the electron theory of matter and the explanation of fine spectrum lines and of gravitation. Phil. Mag. (Ser. 6), p. 21...29, 1906. In: N.T. Rousver. A perihelion of a Mercury from Leverje up to an Einstein. World, M., 1985, page 132...133. In Russian.
  20. K.P. Stanjukovich. Interaction of two bodies, "emanatings" gas streams. The reports AcSci USSR, 4, page 119, 1958.
  21. W. B. Taylor. Kinetic theories of gravitation. Rep. (Wash)., p. 205...282, 1876.
  22. J. Zenneck. Gravitation. Encykl. Math. Wiss., 6 (1), 25...27, 1903.
  23. J. B. Stallo. The concepts and theories of modern physics. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, 1960.

Is published earlier:

"Science of Kazakhstan", 16 (124), August 16...31, 1998.

Date of the publication:

June 24, 2000

Electronic version:

© NiT. Current publications, 1997

В начало сайта | Книги | Статьи | Журналы | Нобелевские лауреаты | Издания НиТ | Подписка
NiT's Electronic library: Books | Articles | Biographies | Abstracts | NiT's Publications | Journal
NiT's Projects and Companions: Competitions | Joint projects | Editorial Department
© МОО «Наука и техника», 1997...2016
About NiTContactAdvertisingLegal information
Яндекс цитирования
Яндекс.Метрика