Physics Help
Reciprocal System of Theory
Reciprocal System of Theory
The Reciprocal System of Theory (RST) is
held by advocates to be a theoretical framework capable of comprehensively
explaining all physical phenomena from
subatomic particles to
galactic clusters. The framework, based on the work of Dewey B. Larson, an
American
engineer and author, was originally described in his book The Structure
of the Physical Universe in
1959
and has more recently been published in three revised and enlarged volumes. The
ideas are promoted by the members of 'The International Society of Unified
Science, Inc.' (ISUS) whose only stated objective is to "advance in all ways
deemed feasible the Reciprocal System of physical theory as proposed by Dewey B.
Larson".
The RST and the work of Larson assumes that the basic
constituent of the universe is
motion (i.e. space & time), not
matter. Thus, it is a unique approach in the science of physics. However, so
far, it has remained essentially unknown or ignored in the mainstream physics
community, since it is completely at odds with current theories such as
relativity,
quantum mechanics and the
Big Bang and many other modern theories. Although it is generally dismissed
by those physicists who are aware of it, proponents claim that it rests on solid
philosophical grounds, and that it is the first general theory of physics ever
developed. Unlike conventional theory, they point out, the RST has no empirical
content, but rather all its conclusions are based solely on its initial
assumptions. These initial assumptions are contained in only two brief
statements that Larson designated the "Fundamental Postulates" of the system,
namely:
-
1) The physical universe is composed entirely of
one component, motion, existing in three dimensions, in discrete units, and
with two reciprocal aspects, space and time.
-
2) The physical universe conforms to the relations
of ordinary commutative mathematics, its magnitudes are absolute and its
geometry is Euclidean.
From the first postulate, Larson concludes that while both
space and time are three dimensional, or, in other words that it takes three
magnitudes to completely specify them, they can have no physical significance
other than what they have in the equation of motion. Therefore, it follows that
space is not an independent entity that can be affected by matter in any
respect. Considered apart from motion, space is only a concept, or mental
construct, which can be utilized to devise a convenient system of reference for
measurement purposes. Likewise, time is not an independent physical entity that
can be considered apart from motion. Space and time only have meaning as
reciprocal aspects of motion.
Larson further concludes from the first postulate that, since
the postulated three-dimensionional motion is assumed to exist in discrete
units, the dimensions of motion are therefore independent. This means that
independent two-dimensional and one-dimensional motion are also possible. In
fact, in the due course of the theory's development, Larson shows that
quantities of one-dimensional motion correspond to electric potential,
quantities of two-dimensional motion correspond to magnetic potential, and
quantities of three-dimensional motion correspond to gravitational potential.
Larson argues that this is the basis for explaining many otherwise unexplainable
electrical and magnetic phenomena such as induction (in general, 2D motion
(magnetic motion) cancels a portion of 3D motion (matter) leaving a 1D motion
residue (electric motion), or, alternately, 1D motion (electric motion) cancels
a portion of 3D motion (matter) leaving a 2D motion residue (magnetic motion)).
Of course, this theroetical approach of a universe consisting
of nothing but motion (space and time) constitutes a completely new paradigm
that departs radically from the current paradigm of a universe consisting of
matter contained in space and time. This is most simply illustrated in
the difference between Einstein's conclusion, called the Equivalence Principle,
that the force of gravity is equivalent to an acceleration, and
Larson's conclusion that the force of gravity is an acceleration.
Another example is Einstein's conclusion that matter and energy are
equivalent. Larson asserts that this leads to a contradiction at high
speeds, which is resolved by the conclusion that matter and energy are not
equivalent, but interconvertable, meaning matter can be converted to energy and
vice-versa, but the two are distinct degrees of motion (matter is 3D motion,
while energy is 1D motion.) These are just two of the many cases where the
concepts of the different paradigms lead to conflicting conclusions; there are
many others.
For instance, the RST concludes unequivocally that
gravitational radiation, a requirement of general relativity, cannot exist,
and that gravity operates without any medium or continuum such as the
four-dimensional (4D), curved-space of relativity, or any process of
transmission between gravitating bodies. Although this is in accord with current
observations, it is at odds with existing indirect evidence for the existence of
gravitational radiation, from binary neutron star measurements. While
General relativity (GR) predicts that, due to gravitational radiation, the
orbit of such systems will decay at a specific rate, the RST attributes the
force of gravity to the inherent 3D inward motion of the
mass
of gravitating bodies. In this way the same motion that constitutes the mass of
a body also produces the force of gravity associated with that mass. No energy
transmission process is involved in this phenomenon, and, thus, no orbital decay
should result from its operation.
However, an orbital decay is observed in these
binary star systems, and the rate of decay is as predicted by general
relativity, to an accuracy of 0.5%. On the other hand, it must be conceded that
these systems are not well understood, and definite conclusions are premature at
this point. For instance, at least one system (PSR B1744-24A,) is exhibiting an
orbital decay of five times the rate attainable through gravitational radiation.
Fortunately, new gravitational wave detectors, such as LIGO,
VIRGO, LISA and others, are soon expected to detect gravitational radiation
directly, which promises to settle the matter definitively.
Meanwhile, RST proponents claim that the theory is also
consistent with recent observations that the geometry of the universe is flat
(from the
CMB data), and that the cosmological parameter,
Omega, is precisely equal to one. These data are in conflict with
traditional Big Bang cosmology, where Euclidean geometry would appear to be
highly unlikely. While the theory of
cosmic inflation is the method accepted by most physicists for overcoming
this apparent contradiction, the fact that such ad hoc theories are
necessary at all, is prima facia evidence, say RST proponents, of the
problems experienced in current physical theories, which they complain are, as
Richard Feynman said, "a multitude of different parts and pieces that do not
fit together very well."
The most embarrassing example of this predicament, advocates
say, is the recent discovery of the
accelerating expansion of the universe. The observed acceleration is thought
to be produced by a gravity-like repulsive force. Some think that this force,
dubbed "dark
energy," by Michael Turner of the
University of Chicago, might be vacuum energy, represented by the "cosmological
constant" (λ) in general relativity or possibly something called "Quintessence."
While this new positive force is thought to be similar to the negative force of
gravity, its existence is in conflict with established theories. However, a
similar outward, gravity-like motion has been an integral part of the RST from
the beginning, and is a major component in the RST's calculations and
explanations of both the large-scale structure of the
universe and its
atomic and
molecular scale structure. It plays a fundamental role in the RST's
explanation of the recession of galaxies, star formation, galaxy formation and
the explosions of stars, without the need for the "Big Bang," or
black holes to explain these processes. Of course, the RST is not necessary
to explain this outward motion--Einstein
himself proposed the expedient of inserting a cosmological constant into his
equations soon after he proposed the theory of relativity, and, even today,
mainstream scientists are exploring new ad hoc theories of expansion to
address the problem and explain the observations without the need for the RST,
but, the proponents emphasize, theoretical adjustments such as these cannot be
made in the RST as everything in it must follow from the consequences of its
fundamental postulates. Needless to say, such a claim sets the RST apart as very
unusual and extremely unorthodox.
Other examples of unusual and unorthodox theoretical
conclusions reached in the RST include the derivation of a non-nuclear model of
the atom in Nothing But Motion, which leads directly to the periodic
order of the elements. Larson claims that his theory accurately derives the
elements in correct order without employing the nuclear concept of
electrons orbiting an atomic nucleus, and predicts that the maximum
number of elements in the
periodic table is 117. However, his theory has not yet accounted for the
atomic spectra of the elements. In contrast, the extremely accurate results
obtained by quantum mechanics and the nuclear model of the atom are well known.
On the other hand, in Basic Properties of Matter,
Larson makes theoretical predictions for a large number of properties of a range
of chemical species, including
atomic mass,
interatomic distance,
compressibility and
heat capacity. It appears that he calculates these values from simple
closed-form analytic formulas. If accurate, this would be a vast improvement on
the complex calculations required to make theoretical predictions under quantum
mechanics. For instance, using the RST non-nuclear model of the atom, Larson
begins with calculations of inter-atomic distances of the elements. These
distances, which in the RST are a result of an equilibrium reached between two
opposing, non-electronic forces, are calculated by an equation derived from the
"specific" motion of the atom's combination of motions in several dimensions. In
it's simplest form, applicable to the noble elements, where there are only two
such specific motions involved, the equation is:
-
so = 2.914 ln t angstroms
where so is the center-to-center distance in
angstrom units and t is the specific motions of the elements. Where these two
specific motions are equal, only 1 of them enters into the calculation. However,
if they are unequal, a single value is obtained by squaring the first and taking
the cube root of its product with the second:
-
t = (t2 t)1/3
On this basis, the result for Neon, with its two specific
rotations of 3 and 3 is exceedingly simple to calculate:
-
so = 2.914 * ln t = 2.914 * ln 3 = 2.914 *
1.098612 = 3.201355 angstroms
This value compares with an observed value of 3.17 angstroms
for Neon (see webelements.com.) The calculated values of the other noble
elements for which data is available are also quite comparable. For instance,
the calculation of Argon is 3.76 angstroms, which compares to an observed value
of 3.72 angstroms; the value for Krypton is 4.04, compared to 4.04 observed; and
4.38 for Xenon, compared to 4.39 observed.
However, in many cases Larson must modify the equations to be
used, changing them from species to species on grounds difficult for
non-initiates to easily follow without further study. For example, Larson lists
characteristic values for the various species which are specific to the RST,
such as "specific electric rotation". Because the basis for the procedure for
calculating these values is explained in an earlier volume of the work, it is
necessary to devote a great deal of time to the study of the RST to rule out the
allegation that they were selected arbitrarily to make the predictions fit the
data. Nevertheless, it's interesting to note that Larson's calculations of the
values shown above, except for Neon, are closer to the accepted values today
than when he published them in the early 1980s.
According to its proponents, the RST can also be used to
solve the famous problem of the
precession of the
perihelion of the planet
Mercury. This problem was first solved using
Einstein's equations of general relativity, which assumes relative values of
space-time in the equations of motion, as opposed to
Newton's assumption that space and time should be treated as absolute
concepts in the equations of motion. Larson, in the RST, also assumes absolute
values of space and time, but goes beyond Newton in the definition of these
crucial concepts. Using these definitions, K.V.K. Nehru produced a paper
describing the orbital motion of high-speed planets. The result he found from
the RST was precisely the same as that from relativity. Hence, like general
relativity, the RST is fully in agreement with accurate measurements of
Mercury's orbit.
Home | Up | Cold Fusion | Dynamic Theory of Gravity | Luminiferous Aether | Orgone Energy | Reciprocal System of Theory
Steady State Theory
Physics Help, made by MultiMedia | Free content and software
This guide is licensed under the GNU
Free Documentation License. It uses material from the Wikipedia.
|
