htm
GLIMPSES NEW PARADIGM
OF A
K.V.K. NEHRU
Reflections and Comments
Glimpses of a New Paradigm How do We Meet the New Age Ushered in by the Reciprocal System? Subversive Reflections on the Practice of Physics Dialogue with D. B. Larson: Part I Dialogue with D. B. Larson: Part II Scientific Correspondence
Particle Physics
Lifetimes of CAtom Decays Lifetime of CArgon, the Muon Internal Ionization and Secondary Mass
The Lifetime of the Neutron Relative Abundance of the Elements The Interregional Ratio The Nature of Scalar Motion Electric Ionization The Law of Conservation of Direction Is Ferromagnetism a Comagnetic Phenomenon? Theoretical Evaluation of Planck‘s Constant Superconductivity: A Time Region Phenomenon On the Nature of Rotation and Birotation The Photon as Birotation Birotation and the Doubts of Thomas Wave Mechanics in the Light of the Reciprocal System ―Quantum Mechanics‖ as the Mechanics of the Time Region ‗NonLocality‘ in the Reciprocal System Some Thoughts on Spin High Energy Physics and the Reciprocal System
Astrophysics
Gravitational Deflection of Light Beam in the Reciprocal System New Light on the Gravitational Deflection of Radiation Path Gravitational Redshift according to the Reciprocal System The Gravitational Limit and the Hubble‘s Law Precession of the Planetary Perihelia due to Coordinate Time Glimpses into the Structure of the Sun, Part I Glimpses into the Structure of the Sun, Part II Distribution of the Masses of Protostars in Globular Clusters Intrinsic Variables, Supernovae and the Thermal Limit The Quasar Paradox? Radio Component Separation in Quasars Another Look at the Pulsar Phenomemon The Cosmic Background Radiation: Origin and Temperature The Largescale Structure of the Physical Universe
GLIMPSES OF A NEW PARADIGM
For centuries mankind has held implicitly the view that we live in a universe of matter contained in space and time. All scientific theories hitherto have been built on this paradigm. Now Dewey B. Larson introduces the new paradigm that motion is the basic and sole constituent of the physical universe, and spacetime is the content—not the container—of the universe. We review in this article some of the highlights of his theory, the Reciprocal System, which he develops from the new paradigm.
Introduction
The objective of this article is to introduce the physical theory being called The Reciprocal System. Its originator, Dewey Larson, starting from two Postulates as regarding the nature of the basic constituents of the physical universe and the mathematics applicable thereto, builds a cogent theoretical structure that lays claim to being a general theory. As it is impossible to outline the whole theory in the short space of an article, an attempt has been made to present only those salient features that do not require lengthy explanation and have a broadenough scope to enable the interested reader to appreciate its potentialities. More esoteric features of the theory have been intentionally omitted from this preliminary treatment. They are, of course, available in the published works of Larson[17].
The Conceptual Roadblock
The view that the physical universe is made up of basic units of matter, embedded in a framework of space and time, has been held by the common man and the scientist/philosopher for over the entire period of recorded history. Every new century has brought new and revolutionary ideas about the Universe that shook and changed our earlier views, but the concept of matter contained in a spacetime background has remained unquestioned. Larson finds that it is this concept—which we shall call the concept of the universe of matter—that stood in the way of development of a truly general physical theory, one that explains all domains of physical facts—from the atomic to the astronomical—from the same set of fundamental premises. He has carried out the needed review of the concepts of space and time and finds that the introduction of the new paradigm, that the fundamental and the sole constituent of the physical universe is motion, leads us to an understanding of all the physical phenomena, and makes possible the construction of the longsought after general theory. To be sure, there have been earlier thinkers who attempted to build a general theory based on motion as the fundamental constituent. Larson points out that the lack of success in all earlier attempts was due to the fact that these thinkers failed to realize the crucial point that in a universe based on motion (which is a relation of space and time), space and time cannot have independent existence (or definition), that they cannot be regarded as a background (or ‗container‘) for themselves. No matter what conceptual reforms these thinkers introduced into physical theory they all alike continued to subscribe to the container view of space and time and as a result blocked themselves from true progress.
Space, Time and Progression
The first of the two fundamental Postulates of the Reciprocal System from which Larson derives every aspect of the physical universe is ―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.‖ Larson considers speed, which is the relation of space and time, s/t, as the measure of motion and points out that a unit of speed is the minimum quantity that can exist in the universe of motion, since fractional units are not permitted by the Postulate of his theory. Since one unit of speed is the minimum quantity admissible, both space and time have to be quantized: unit speed must therefore be the ratio of a unit of space to a unit of time, each of which is the minimum possible quantity. Certain corollaries follow. Corollary (1) Firstly, we see that space and time are reciprocally related to speed: that doubling the space with constant time, for example, has the same effect on speed as halving the time at constant space. As a recognition of the farreaching significance this reciprocal relation holds for the explanation of all the physical facts, Larson names his theoretical structure The Reciprocal System of theory. Corollary (2) At the unit level, not only is one unit of space like all other units of space, but a unit of space is equivalent to a unit of time. Larson postulates a total uniformity in the properties of space and of time, except for the fact that they are reciprocal aspects of motion. Thus he concludes that time, like space, is threedimensional, and that space, like time, progresses. At this juncture it may be pointed out that in order to understand (or evaluate) the new ideas engendered by the new paradigm, namely that the physical universe is a universe composed of units of motion (speed), it is necessary to view them in their new context. On the other hand, the most frequent mistake committed by the novice is to view the new concepts from the habitual viewpoint of the previous paradigm, that the universe is a universe of matter, embedded in a framework of space and time. Such an attempt leads one, often, to seemingly absurd, impossible or incredulous conclusions. To avoid slipping back involuntarily into the old and inadmissible frame of mind while evaluating the Reciprocal System theory is one of the most difficult tasks that a critic has to constantly accomplish . Now it is important to recognize that there is absolutely nothing spacelike in the three dimensions of time: they are entirely temporal parameters. The common belief that time is onedimensional is an unwarranted conclusion drawn from the fact that time enters our experience as a scalar quantity. The real reason why time appears as a scalar quantity in the equations of motion lies in the fact that no matter how many dimensions of time may exist, they have nothing to do with directions in space.
The idea that space progresses in the same manner as time might look more weird than the idea of multidimensional time. Our immediate experience is that of stationary space. But history has repeatedly shown that our immediate experience of space has always proved to be a bad guide in understanding the true nature of the universe. We first thought that the earth is flat. Then we made the mistake of thinking our earth to be the center of the universe and ended up in the maze of epicycles. Larson draws our attention to the fact that the increased scope of our scientific observations has brought us to the point where too many epicycles have once again been accumulated in the field of science in the form of unresolved old questions, fresh new puzzles and everincreasing complexity of physical theory. He questions whether our anthropocentric view of space is not once again the culprit that is barring progress. He points out that our experience of space as stationary is valid only locally (that is, in the context of a gravitationallybound system). The true nature of space is to progress, to expand ceaselessly outward. Wherever gravitation (an inward motion) becomes negligible, weakened by distance, the inherent progression of space becomes apparent. The observed recession of the distant galactic systems stems directly from this space progression, not from any hypothetical ‗big bang.‘ In fact, the observed Hubble‘s law is derivable from the postulates of the Reciprocal System. Since a universe of motion cannot exist without the existence of motion, the most primitive condition of the universe is the steady progression of space coupled with the progression of time: in other words, a motion at unit speed. Beginners usually encounter here the difficulty of imagining the existence of motion without it being the motion of anything. But a little reflection should show that in a universe of motion the most fundamental constituent is motion, and all ‗things‘ are derivatives of motion. Since every space unit is like every other space unit, and every unit of time is like every other unit of time, such a condition appears to our view as a featureless uniformity in which nothing is happening and constitutes the null background. Thus unit speed, and not zero speed, turns out to be nature‘s starting point. Larson refers to this background spacetime progression as the ‗natural reference frame,‘ and identifies the unit speed with the speed of light, c.
Emergence of Physical Phenomena
By virtue of the fact that either the space unit or the time unit could progress inward, rather than outward as they do in the case of the spacetime progression, speeds other than unity become possible. Larson points out that it is these deviations (or ‗displacements‘) from the unit speed that constitute observable phenomena, namely, radiation, gravitation, electricity, magnetism and all the rest. These are autonomous, independent motions in contradistinction to the everpresent background progression. This gives rise to two possibilities. Suppose k number of reversals occur in the space component, and suppose the unit speed of spacetime progression contains n space units per n time units (n/n = 1). Such a situation produces less than unit speeds, (nk)/n. Since such a motion detaches itself from the spacetime progression in its spatial aspect, we find it to be a motion in space. The second possibility is that the reversals occur in the time component of the motion. This results in greater than unit speeds, n/(nk). In this second case it is the time component which gets detached from the background
progression and we note that it constitutes what might be termed a motion in time (not ‗time travel‘). This is the reason why unit speed (c, the speed of light) is the upper limit for motion in space. It does not mean, as concluded in Relativity, that speeds greater than c are impossible in the physical universe: it only means that such speeds do not manifest in our conventional, stationary reference frame of threedimensional space as displacements in space. These greaterthanunit speeds (namely, the motion in time) can be represented truly only in a ‗stationary‘ reference frame of threedimensional time. Our state of knowledge thus far has disposed us to assume tacitly that motion means motion in space; the possibility of motion in time has never been imagined, much less investigated. While such motion cannot be truly represented in the conventional, spatial reference frame, it has nevertheless some observable features by virtue of the inverse relationship between space and time. For example, in a supernova explosion, if sufficient energy is available, Larson points out that some of the constituent matter of the star gets propelled to greaterthanunit speeds. The lessthanunit speed component manifests itself as a cloud expanding in space. On the other hand, the greaterthanunit speed component manifests itself as a cloud expanding in time (since it is a motion in time). In view of the reciprocal relation between space and time referred to above, this expansion in time manifests itself to us as contraction in space and we observe this component as a superdense and compact star. Thus we have the red giant/white dwarf combination so frequently found as supernova product. Larson‘s theoretical investigations show that the same concept of motion in time can explain every other type of superdense astronomical phenomena, not just the white dwarfs. He shows that as age advances, the central regions of massive galaxies keep on accumulating motion in time (since greater than unit speeds do not involve movement in space, this matter does not leak out). When enough energy accumulates, it results in a stupendous explosion in which the central part(s) of a galaxy gets ejected and is found as a superdense star system, which, of course, is observed as a quasar. All the strange and unconventional characteristics of quasars—like their high density, large redshift, stupendous luminosity, jetstructure, peculiar radiation structure, evolution—can be deduced from the theory. We have seen that the null condition of the universe of motion is unit speed and that a ‗displacement‘ from this condition takes the form of either less than unit speed (s/t) or greater than unit speed (the latter being equivalent to less than unit inverse speed, t/s). Larson identifies this displaced speed with radiation, and the speed displacement with its frequency. While the photon gets detached from the background spacetime progression in the dimension of its oscillation, it does not have any independent motion in the dimension of space perpendicular to the dimension in which the vibratory motion occurs. Thus the photon is permanently situated in the space unit of the spacetime progression in which it is created. But from the context of the stationary spatial reference frame any location of the spacetime progression appears to progress outward (away) at unit speed. Thus, while actually the photon is stationary in the natural reference frame, ostensibly it appears to move away at unit speed. Incidentally we might note that, when in a single process a photon pair happens to be created, while the individual photons seemingly appear to fly off in space in opposite directions, they continue to be connected in time.
This results in a correlation between them that is not representable in threedimensional space (the EPR paradox). Once photons are available, the possibility of a compound motion appears wherein the photon could be subjected to a rotational displacement in two dimensions (covering all the three dimensions of space). Larson identifies such units of compound motion with the atoms of matter. Because of the two facts that the maximum possible speed is unity and that the background spacetime progression is already taking place at that speed in the outward (away from each other) direction, all autonomous (independent) motions (speeds) have to take place in the inward (toward each other) direction only. Thus the units of rotational displacement start moving in the inward direction, reversing the pattern of spacetime progression. Larson identifies this inward motion with gravitation. We now see that there is no propagation involved in gravitation, nor it can be screened off: it is the inherent motion of each atom toward every other atom—in fact, toward every other location of the spacetime progression, whether or not occupied by an atom. The nonexistence of propagation time and the seeming actionatadistance, both owe their origin to the above fact. Theoretical analysis reveals that elements with atomic numbers 1 through 117 can all exist in young matter. In old matter, however, elements with the higher atomic numbers become subject to radioactive decay, by a process identified by Larson.
The Regions of the Physical Universe
An interesting fact that needs special mention is that the rotational displacement that constitutes the atoms could be either of the lessthanunitspeed type or the greaterthanunitspeed type. In either case gravitation acts inward (in opposition to the outward progression of spacetime). But in the case of the former type of atoms, since lessthanunit speeds produce motion in space, gravitation acts inward in space, resulting in the formation of aggregates in the threedimensional spatial reference frame. Larson calls this portion of the universe the material sector. On the other hand, the atoms constituted of greaterthanunit speeds manifest motion in time. The resulting gravitation acts inward in time, and produces aggregates in the threedimensional temporal reference frame. Larson refers to this matter as cosmic matter, their inward motion in time cosmic gravitation, and this portion of the physical universe the cosmic sector. We therefore discover another half of the physical universe where all the phenomena pertaining to our sector are duplicated, but with the roles of space and time interchanged. Even though cosmic matter occurs as ubiquitously and abundantly as ordinary matter we do not encounter it readily. Firstly, the atoms of the cosmic stars and galaxies are aggregated in threedimensional time but are randomly distributed in space, so that we see a cosmic star not as a spatial aggregate, but atom by atom. Secondly, while the cosmic gravitation moves the cosmic atoms inward in time, our own matter progresses outward in time. Thus, even the chance of encounters of atoms with cosmic atoms do not last for more than one natural unit of time (about oneseventh of a femtosecond). Larson identifies all the exotic particles that abound in the highenergy environment of the particle accelerators with the ‗cosmic atoms,‘ with some additional features acquired under the artificial environment.
A further fact of interest is that while the radiation emitted by the stars of our sector is at a high temperature, that emitted by the cosmic stars would be at a high inverse temperature, that is, at a low temperature. Since radiation moves at unit speed, unit speed being the border between both the sectors of the universe, it is observable from both the sectors, in whichever sector it originates. Therefore, the radiation emitted by the cosmic stars, as it comes from a region not localized in space, is received in the material sector (that is, the threedimensional spatial reference frame) with an absolutely uniform and isotropic distribution. We observe this as the lowtemperature, cosmic background radiation. In the Reciprocal System, we find no necessity to reconcile the absolute isotropy of this background radiation with the clumpiness of the spatial distribution of the material aggregates.
The Grand Cycle of the Universe
We have already mentioned that quasars are the high (greater than unit) speed explosion products of aged galaxies. When gravitation in space is attenuated by distance (time) and becomes negligible, the quasar as a whole shifts from the region of less than unit speed (conventional spatial reference frame) to the region of greater than unit speed (the threedimensional temporal reference frame). Gravitation ceases to act in space and starts acting in time. This leaves the outward progression of spacetime without check (as there is no inward progression of gravitation in space) and the constituents of the quasar start flying out in space at unit speed. Eventually the quasar ceases to exist as a spatial aggregate and disappears altogether from the material sector. In other words, the atoms of the erstwhile quasar emerge into the threedimensional temporal reference frame of the cosmic sector at totally random locations (in time). The corollary is that similar set of events occurs in the cosmic sector—cosmic atoms aggregate in threedimensional time forming cosmic stars and galaxies, parts of which explode on attaining a size limit and eject cosmic quasars, which eventually exit the cosmic sector and end up entering the material sector. Since they come from a region not localized in space, these incoming cosmic atoms would be uniformly and isotropically distributed throughout the threedimensional space. Since the transfer occurs at the unit speed we ought to observe these particles at unit or nearunit speed. These, of course, are the observed cosmic ray primaries. The Reciprocal System traces out in detail how these cosmic atoms, being greaterthanunitspeed structures in a lessthanunitspeed environment, promptly decay, ejecting speed (energy) and ‗cosmic mass‘ (that is, inverse mass), finally ending up as the most primitive atomic structures of the material sector, namely, hydrogen. Then the entire cycle of aggregation in space and eventual ejection begins. In the long run, as much matter comes from the cosmic sector as it leaves the material sector. Thus the dual sector universe as a whole is in equilibrium and steady state, while each sector continues to expand in space or in time as the case may be. There is no necessity to assume the singularity of a ‗big bang‘ nor to breaking of any conservation laws as in ‗continual creation.‘
The Solid State
Because of the fact that the minimum space that can occur in physical action is one natural unit of space (the quantum of space), if two atoms are made to approach each other they cannot come any nearer than one unit of space. However, by virtue of the reciprocal relation between space and time, these atoms can accomplish the equivalent of moving inward in space by actually moving outward in time. This they promptly do until a force (motion) equilibrium is achieved, giving rise to the solid state of matter. Since less than one unit of space does not exist, within the unit of space all motion could be in time only. The inside of unit space is therefore referred to as the time region by Larson. The spacetime progression always acts away from unity. In the outside region away from unity is also away from zero (outward). But in the inside region away from unity is towards zero. Therefore the spacetime progression is inward in the time region. Since gravitation always opposes spacetime progression, it acts outward in the time region (repulsion). Further, while the spacetime progression is constant at unit value, gravitation attenuates with distance. The two motions (forces) therefore reach a stable equilibrium at some distance in the time region and produce the configuration of solid state. Larson finds that a single theory of cohesion explains all kinds of bonds. Basing on purely theoretical computations he is able to accurately calculate the various solid state properties of hundreds of elements and compounds.
New Light on Quantum Phenomena
Since in the time region only motion in time can truly exist, the appropriate reference frame that ought to be adopted for the description of the phenomena is the threedimensional temporal reference frame, and not the conventional, spatial reference frame. The origin of the conventional reference frame is at zero speed, whereas the origin of the temporal reference frame is at zero inverse speed, which is tantamount to infinite speed in the context of the conventional spatial frame, and consequently a location pertaining to the temporal reference frame is found not to be localized in the conventional reference frame. This is the origin of the nonlocality characteristic so perplexing in quantum theory. This reciprocal (inverse) relation between these two types of reference frames also explains why a localizable particle in the context of a temporal reference frame needs to be regarded as an endless repetition, namely, as a wave, in the context of the spatial reference frame. Thus the Reciprocal System throws new light on the concepts of quantum theory. As the time region is a region of motion in time, it requires the adoption of a temporal reference frame for the description of particle phenomena. But, being irrevocably wedded to the spatial reference frame of the material sector, we are unable to accomplish this. However, we are able to accomplish the equivalent of adopting the temporal reference frame by resorting to the expedient of adopting the wave picture in the place of the particle picture. This insight resolves the problem of the waveparticle duality. It further clarifies that the question of adopting the wave picture arises only on entering the time region, the region inside the unit of space. To associate a wave with every gross object is unwarranted. There are yet unforeseen insights brought to light by the Reciprocal System. In the outside region, that is, in the context of the threedimensional spatial reference frame, speed (s/t) is directional (vectorial). However, in the time region, that is, in the context of
threedimensional temporal reference frame inverse speed (t/s) is the quantity that is ‗directional‘ while speed appears scalar. But it must be cautioned that this ‗direction‘ pertains to the realm of threedimensional time and has nothing to do with direction in space. Thus inverse speed, though it could be ‗directional‘ in time, is not a vector. In the universe of motion all physical quantities can be reduced to spacetime terms. Larson, in a major overhaul of the dimensions of various physical quantities, arrives at the conclusion that the dimensions of energy are those of inverse speed, namely, t/s. Consequently, energy needs to be represented by complex numbers in the time region and negative energy states are as natural in the time region as negative speeds (velocities) are in the spatial reference frame.
Conclusion
We have endeavoured to sketch out some of the important contributions of the Reciprocal System to the understanding of the physical universe starting from a new paradigm—the concept of a universe of motion, in place of the current one of a universe of matter embedded in a framework of space and time. The examples cited here are expected to convey the broadenough scope of the theoretical system and establish that a prima facie case exists for a general theory. It is only fair to record that some of the more esoteric aspects of the theory, such as multidimensional motion, the scalar region of the universe, etc., have had to be omitted entirely for pedagogical reasons and hence interesting questions concerning two large and important fields, namely, of electricity and magnetism, could not be considered in this article. Mention must also be made of the fact that Larson finds the basic constituent of the universe according to the new paradigm, namely, motion, to be scalar motion. Even though the existence of this kind of motion has been recognized, it has played a very minor and insignificant role in physical theory hitherto. So, Larson carries out a fullscale investigation of the properties and possibilities of scalar motion and discovers that this type of motion plays a central role in the drama of the physical phenomena. He finds, for example, that some of the unexplained physical facts are really the unfamiliar features of certain types of scalar motion. In this preliminary article we have refrained, for practical reasons, from dwelling on this important contribution of the Reciprocal System. Surely one might question the rationale of omitting some of these important contributions of the theory when at the same time emphasizing its all out nature. The real reason is—as has been hinted at the outset—no matter how simple and logical the new conclusions are from the viewpoint of the new paradigm, since one is habituated to the old paradigm, some of them might look unimaginable or utterly unscientific. Having invested one‘s entire professional career in the existing paradigm, one‘s mind does not take kindly to the prospect of a basic paradigm change. The first few contacts are the most difficult ones as Kuhn points out. One would not be inclined even to pay attention to the new conclusions, much less evaluate them on their own merit.
References
1. Larson, D.B., The Case Against the Nuclear Atom, (North Pacific Publishers, Portland, OR, USA, 1963)
2. Larson, D.B., Beyond Newton, (North Pacific Publishers, Portland, OR, USA, 1964) 3. Larson, D.B., New Light on Space and Time, (North Pacific Publishers, Portland, OR, USA, 1965) 4. Larson, D.B., Nothing But Motion, (North Pacific Publishers, Portland, OR, USA, 1979) 5. Larson, D.B., Basic Properties of Matter, (ISUS, Salt Lake City, UT, USA, 1979) 6. Larson, D.B., The Neglected Facts of Science, (North Pacific Publishers, Portland, OR, USA, 1982) 7. Larson, D.B., The Universe of Motion, (North Pacific Publishers, Portland, OR, USA, 1984)
HOW DO WE MEET THE NEW AGE USHERED IN BY THE RECIPROCAL SYSTEM ?
The student of the Reciprocal System is often beset with a peculiar difficulty, the nature of which he does not recognize readily. The result is that he does not even suspect that his progress is being blocked by this difficulty. I have writen several times referring to this but find that it is by no means easy for the student to realize the point I am endeavoring to show. For instance, in a recent communication, circulated by Maurice Gilroy (Re: Message 17 of Conference 01 mailed 8/19/93), we find Robert Tucek asking: ―What observations correspond to a basic rotation of natural units?‖ (Please see the short note on STP at the end. ) The context of his questioning was, of course, about the possibility of rotation as a primary motion as against linear translation. A little later he emphasizes, ―Rotational motion, by definition, requires an object!‖ The prevailing view in the ISUS seems to be that while linear motion can exist without any object, rotation is not possible without an object. We wish to show that this view is not applicable in the context of the universe of motion postulated by the Reciprocal System. Larson has repeatedly pointed out to us that the most basic component of the universe of motion is motion, not matter or any other ‗object.‘ On the other hand, the most basic component of the universe of matter is matter: motion being regarded as something added on to these primary units, namely, matter. Let us highlight these: Concept of the Universe of Motion: Motion or space/time: the content of this universe; primary component Concept of the Universe of Matter: Matter: the content of this universe; primary component Space/time: the background or container Motion: something that could be acquired by objects, like matter. Therefore, referring to the primary units of motion, in the context of the universe of motion, when we speak of rotational motion, we do not mean the rotational motion of an object, for the simple fact that there is no ‗object‘ logically prior to the primary motion. The term ‗primary component‘ implies logical priority. In fact, the expression ‗rotation of natural units,‘ used by Tucek, as also by so many other students, is positively misleading: as though the natural units are first existing and then are given a rotation. The truth is that when we speak of a rotational space unit (as against linear space unit) we do not mean ―the rotation of the space unit;‖ rather, we mean ―the rotation that is the space unit.‖ Our preoccupation with the Cartesian (rectangular) coordinate frame has some biasing inf luence. Turning, instead, to the polar coordinates, r and q, we find that the linear and rotational space are on an equal footing. A scalar parameter has only magnitude and no direction in space. Examples are wages (dollars/hr) or production (units/min) etc. Though speed (cm/sec)—in contrast to velocity—is taken to be scalar, it is not scalar in the absolute sense of the previous examples (in the sense that dollars or numbers have no
relation whatsoever to direction in space). This is because distance between two points, say, A and B, does have an intrinsic direction, namely, AB or BA (which wage or production does not have). ‗Scalar speed‘ merely means that this intrinsic direction is not oriented in any direction of the reference system. That is to say that there is no specific relation between this intrinsic direction and the conventional reference frame. Thus we use the word ‗scalar‘ either in a strong (or absolute) sense or in a weak sense. Wage is an absolute scalar in that it does not have an intrinsic direction, whereas speed has a potential direction in space that could be actualized in the context of a spatial reference frame. In exactly the same manner a scalar speed could be rotational (radians/sec) instead of linear (cm/sec). Rotation also has an intrinsic direction, namely, the axis of rotation. Our preoccupation with rectangular reference frames might make us think that the direction germane to rotation is the everchanging direction of the radius. But this is not correct. The intrinsic direction of rotation is that of its axis (adopting the righthand screw convention). The problem is that we are not used to think of rotation without imagining a rotating object. Even if we are careful enough not to picture any gross physical object, we cannot help imagining a conceptual object, a sphere or disk of space, and see it rotate. The catch here is that we are still envisioning ‗the rotation of the disk,‘ instead of ‗the rotation that is the disk,‘ and so are back in the trap! But the truth is that in the case of rotational speed, d /dt, there is no radius, r, involved. In the case of translational speed we can imagine dr/dt without any connection or reference to ! One useful excercise that might help us overcome this difficulty is first to imagine a rotating disk and then to visualize the disk to be shrinking progressively, such that we are ultimately left with only rotation (radians per sec). Having realized that the intrinsic direction of rotation is its axis, and not the changing direction of the radius, we see that rotation could be as much a scalar quantity as translation is, so long as the intrinsic direction, in either case, is not oriented in any specific direction of the conventional reference frame. Tucek‘s assertion, which is a statement of the difficulty that is common to many other students, that ‗Rotational motion, by definition, requires an object,‘ is true only in the context of the concept of the universe of matter, not in the context of the concept of the universe of motion. In the context of the universe of motion, primary motion—whether translational or rotational—by definition, does not require an object. This is the implication of the expression ‗basic component of the universe.‘ This demonstrates that it is by no means easy to dislodge our moorings to the concept of the universe of matter. We—our generation—are born and bred in the context of this concept. So even though we are repeatedly cautioned we continually keep slipping back into the old view point. When I talk of the primacy of motion—either linear or rotational—as when saying: ―Rotation is possible prior to the existence of ‗things‘ or ‗objects,‘...‖ and if someone finds that either it is a. absurd, b. illogical, or
c. impossible, then it does not establish that I am wrong. It only indicates that either one of us is wrong. Therefore it becomes necessary to examine whether one has, by dint of inveterate habit, slipped back to the view point of the universe of matter. Our thinking is guided by the language, and the present grammatical patterns are thoroughly conditioned by the viewpoint of the universe of matter. Great caution must be excercised in using ellipsis, metaphor or other figures of speech in our discourse. Tedious repetition of long expressions may have to be resorted to so as to avoid misguiding, or evoking semantic responses incongruous to the new view point. For the conventional scientists of our generation (let us call them Group A) there is no difficulty: they are wedded to the viewpoint of the universe of matter from the beginning to the end. For the scientists of the future generation (Group B) there is no difficulty either: from birth they would be raised in the context of the viewpoint of the universe of motion, and the viewpoint of the universe of matter would only be a matter of historical interest. The difficulty is only for those of our generation (Group C) who, while having been bred in the viewoint of the universe of matter, are promoting the study of the Reciprocal System that requires the new viewoint, namely, that of the universe of motion. We keep slipping back to the conventional viewoint. And trying to study the universe of motion from the background of the concept of the universe of matter leads to absurd results. While persons of Groups A and B might be intelligent, those of Group C have not only to be intelligent in the conventional way, they must be intelligent in a different way too. This latter involves an ability to perceive whether, down the line, one has involuntarily reverted to the viewoint of the universe of matter. ‗Illogical,‘ ‗absurd,‘ ‗nonsensical‘and ‗impossible‘ are some of the watchwords that should alert us to this. Surreptitious pride in one‘s intellectual superiority is the first stumbling block. An attitude of cocksureness and finality is the second impediment. The tendency to take the unfamiliar for the inadmissible is the third. Reliance on majority opinion is the fourth. In the chain of deduction from the Fundamental Postulates, far down the line, work is not so difficult. So some of us might have published ‗learned‘ papers or literature on the Reciprocal System. The true difficulty is nearer the Fundamental Postulates, most at the first step, in deducing the primary motions. This is where the clash between the viewpoint of the universe of motion that needs to be adopted and the viewpoint of the universe of matter to which we keep slipping back (unconsciously) has the most deleterious effects. Advocating censorship has good intentions. But implementing it is tricky: we might be unwittingly jeopardizing the very cause which we are professing to promote. We, in our eagerness to reject all that is alien to the Reciprocal System, might commit the mistake of rejecting all that is alien. In the recent ISUS Newsletter (ISUS News, V(1), Spring 1993, pp. 58) I have discussed point by point how the President was misguided in his ruling. However, I know that truth cannot be forced, it must dawn on oneself. Only he who has been able to extricate himself from thinking in terms of the inadmissible viewpoint of the universe of matter and is constantly on vigil to see if he has slipped back to this view point, either in his own study
or in criticizing others‘ work, is the right person to censor. The prevailing correspondence clearly shows that not one of us is equal to the task.
The SpaceTime Progression
The question is often raised that if rotational motion is as primary as linear motion, what is the observable effect, in the case of rotation, which corresponds to the outward progression of spacetime (STP) in the case of linear motion. The natural reference system manifests in the conventional reference frame as a onedimensional scalar outward progression. Let a length AB grow to ABl in x (natural) units of time, such that BBl = x units of space. We make the following observations: Observation I: Since the STP is scalar, it is independent of (i) any direction and (ii) any reference point of the conventional reference frame. Observation II: The effect of the nondependence on direction is to distribute the progression into spherical symmetry. Observation III: The effect of the nondependence on reference point is to distribute the increase in length, namely, the x units of space, uniformly throughout the original length AB. That is, it is not the case that a length BBl is added to the end of the original length AB at B, but additional linear space emerges between every two adjacent points (locations) on AB. Suppose M was the midpoint of AB. After x units of time it occupies location Ml such that it is still the midpoint of ABl . It is extremely important to distinguish this type of increase of length from an increase that is merely appended to the end of an existing length. Both the ubiquity of the STP and the ‗actionatadistance‘ of gravitation stem from this nondependence of scalar motion on reference point. The same state of affairs holds good in the case of rotational motion too, but first we must note the following correspondences between translational and rotational motions: i. ii. Length is measured between two points, one of which is a reference point. Angle is measured between two directions, one of which is a reference direction. The scalar speed cm/sec has an intrinsic direction that may be oriented in any direction of the conventional reference frame. The scalar speed radians/sec has an intrinsic direction that may be oriented in any direction of the conventional reference frame.
Now we are ready to make three observations in the case of rotation as we did in the case of translation above. Let /POQ be an angle f, such that O is the origin, OQ the reference direction and OP another direction. In y units of time let f increase by y units of angle. Observation I: Since the rotational counterpart of the STP is scalar, it is independent of (i) any rotational direction and (ii) any reference direction of the conventional reference frame. Observation II: The effect of the nondependence on rotational direction is to distribute the rotation into spherical symmetry. Observation III: The effect of the nondependence on reference direction is to distribute the increase in angle, namely, the y units of angle, uniformly throughout the original
angle /POQ. That is, it is not the case that an angle y is added to the end of the original angle /POQ at OP, but additional angular space emerges between every two adjacent directions in /POQ It is extremely important to distinguish this type of increase of angle from an increase that is merely appended to the end of an existing angle. Now a complication arises that the conventional reference frame cannot accommodate more than 2 radians of angle (or 4 steradians of solid angle). Therefore, in the case of the former type of increase, as soon as this limit is reached, no further observable effect manifests. Thus the rotational counterpart of the linear STP is seen as no (or zero) rotation. On the other hand, since no such limitation exists for accomodating linear space we observe an unlimited outward progression in the linear case.
SUBVERSIVE REFLECTIONS ON THE PRACTICE OF PHYSICS
―The transition from a paradigm in crisis to a new one is far from a cumulative process. Rather it is a reconstruction of the field from new fundamentals.‖ —Thomas S. Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, pp. 8485 In the article High Energy Physics and the Reciprocal System¹ we indicated that high energy physics is a field approaching a crisis, and therefore the Reciprocal System, originated by Dewey B. Larson, has greater chances of getting a hearing since it offers a truly general theoretical framework resolving longstanding problems. We believe that the dawning of a new century is particularly propitious for new ideas—as it always has been—and the Reciprocal System, with its new paradigm of scalar motion as the sole content of the physical universe, has much to contribute. The need of the times is a good number of interface articles that could bring the knowledge of the Reciprocal System to the orthodoxy, or at least to the iconoclastic thinkers in its ranks. The title of this article is adopted from that of an article² written by A. J. Leggett in the Indian journal of Current Science. I shall quote extensively from this article, giving the page numbers in parentheses. Prof. Leggett is well known in the field of condensed matter physics. He advances in the above article forceful arguments against the reductionist viewpoint in science. Reductionism implies that the behavior of macroscopic systems is in principle entirely determined by the behavior of their microscopic constituents. Leggett is not alone in drawing attention to the limitations of reductionism. Since the pioneering work of the celebrated thermodynamicist and Nobel laureate, Ilya Prigogine, there has been a growing awareness of the limited applicability of the reductionist viewpoint in the fields of physics and life sciences.
Epistemology of Reductionism
Leggett observes that the reductionist argument goes like this: ―We have analyzed the properties of macroscopic bodies in terms of those of atoms and molecules; these systems in turn behave as they do because of the properties of the electrons and nuclei; the behavior of the nuclei is determined by that of their constituent nucleons; and now we trace the properties of the nucleon itself to that of its constituent quarks. What could be more obvious than that the behavior at each level is determined by that of the constituents at the next level below?‖ (p. 787). He then tracks down that ―our experience of ‗understanding how things work‘ starts with mechanical devices made by other human beings, and that the most natural way of achieving such an understanding is precisely to take the device apart into its constituent parts, since these are what the maker started with. Does this experience subconsciously color our perception of what constitutes an ‗explanation‘ of natural phenomena as well as of human artifacts?‖ (p. 787)
He questions that would it be really obvious ―that the behavior of complex bodies is entirely determined by that of their constituents‖ (p. 792) were it not for this subconscious conditioning about what constitutes ‗explanation.‘ ―Reductionism is probably as deeply ingrained in the thinking of most of us as any single element in the whole of our scientific world view.‖(p. 792)
Who Put Reductionism in Nature?
Let us inquire, says Leggett, what most of the contemporary experimentalists and theorists in the field of high energy physics are involved in. ―Most highenergy experimentalists are engaged in a single enterprise which, conceptually if not technically, has a very simple structure. Namely, they accelerate particle A and particle B so as to hit one another, and watch where they and/or particles C, D, E emerge, and with what energy and (sometimes) spin. In particular, the experiment is designed so that, as nearly as possible, the incoming beams are each described by quantummechanical pure states of definite momentum; and while the theory certainly predicts that, in certain cases at least, the outgoing states are not simple classical ‗mixtures‘ of products of plane wave states, but have built into them subtle quantum correlations of the type which are important in Bell‘s theorem, the whole setup is designed precisely so that such subtleties can be neglected.‖ (p. 787) Now when the particle physicists claim that experiments show that Nature is actually simpler at higher energies, might it not be due, Leggett wonders, at least partly ―to the fact that we have chosen to ask her only questions, which by their very construction allow no subtlety in the answers?‖ (p. 787) Referring to the theoretical front he says: ―A few years ago, at least, there were high hopes (I am not clear how far those at the forefront of the field now share them) that in the ‗superstring‘ picture the constraints imposed by the need for selfconsistency would be so severe that they would uniquely determine the parameters of the theory, including as outputs not only the masses and coupling constants of the known elementary particles but even the ‗true‘ dimensionality of spacetime.‖ (p. 788) He then raises the genuine epistemological quandary: ―Can mathematics—a subject which is usually taken to be concerned with analytic truth—really put constraints on how Nature can behave?‖ (p. 788)
The Whole is the Sum of the Parts—Or is it?
Leggett now surveys the evidence for and against reductionism in science. He points out: ―So long as one is dealing with those phenomena, and only those, where we believe that the predictions of quantum mechanics are well approximated by those of classical physics, then the evidence for the reductionist point of view is very strong, and moreover there is absolutely no a priori, internal reason to challenge it. ―For example, in a typical ‗macroscopic quantum effect‘ in the conventional sense, such as the Josephson effect, what we are actually seeing is the effect of a macroscopically large number of Cooper pairs behaving in identical fashion; the observed supercurrent is
simply the sum of the supercurrents carried by the individual pairs of electrons. Similarly, in laser diffraction, we are simply seeing the coherent sum of the behavior of many individual photons. So long as we are dealing with the summed effects—even the summed quantum effects—of a large number of small groups, there seems no reason to doubt a reductionist approach.‖ (p. 793) He continues: ―It is only when we come to intrinsically quantum phenomena that we have a problem. First the positive evidence in favor of reductionism in this regime is much less strong than it looks at first sight and secondly, there are indications, which are intrinsic to the quantum formalism itself, that the reductionistic program not only might, but must eventually fail. ―Let us start with the phenomenon usually known as the AharonovBohm effect. In this, the current flowing through a region of metal which encloses a hole turns out to be affected by the magnetic flux through the hole, even though the magnetic field vanishes everywhere within the metal itself. In other words, the electrons carrying the current are sensitive to the conditions in a region which they never enter, but only enclose with their paths! This already demonstrates that quantum mechanics forces us to give up some of our classical notions about the ‗locality‘ of physical effects.‖ (p. 793) As the next example he considers Bell‘s theorem and the related experiments: ―given that we make our normal assumptions about local causality in the sense of special relativity theory, and about the statistical properties of ensembles being determined entirely by the initial conditions, then what Bell‘s theorem and the associated experiments show is that even though two regions of the universe may be spatially separated and physically noninteracting, we nevertheless cannot ascribe to each of them individual properties; any ‗realization‘ of properties takes place only at the level of the combined system.‖(p. 793) What Bell‘s theorem experiments have shown us is that, in the context of reductionism which implies that ‗the behavior of macroscopic systems is entirely determined by that of their atomiclevel constituents,‘ we are not justified in assuming that the concept of ‗constituent‘ is necessarily associated with spatially localized region. So Leggett exclaims that ―the Bell's theorem experiments are a deathknell for reductionism.‖ (p. 793)
The Quantum Measurement Paradox
There is one more feature of the current quantum mechanics world view to which Leggett draws attention, which gives us reason to doubt the validity of reductionism—the quantum measurement paradox. ―Consider an ensemble of systems which can go from some initial to some final state by either of two paths B and C. At the microlevel, we believe that despite the fact that ‗measurement‘ of the path followed by any individual system will always show that it followed either B or C, the quantum formalism must nevertheless be interpreted as in some sense saying that if no measurement was made, it simply is not the case that one (unknown) possibility out of B and C was realized; rather, both possibilities are in some sense represented in the correct description. as a matter of experimental fact, the
properties of our actual ensemble are not identical to those which we would obtain from a combination of the two ensembles obtained by allowing only B and only C respectively; i.e., we verify, experimentally, the phenomenon of interference between the two paths. So it seems that the quantum formalism in some sense either ascribes ‗reality‘ to both the possibilities B and C, or ascribes it to neither.‖ (p. 794) "At the macrolevel the formalism of quantum mechanics remains exactly the same; but there is now no direct experimental evidence against the hypothesis that one of the possibilities B or C has been realized in each particular case. ―We have here a case in which we have two maps of reality—the quantummechanical map which we apply to atomic phenomena, and the ‗'commonsense,‘ classical map which we use for the macroscopic, everyday world. The problem is that they claim in principle to describe the same level of reality—the world of counters, cats etc.—and yet no one has succeeded in showing that they are compatible.‖ (p. 795) Now, Leggett‘s penetrating insight into this enigma, which first fastened our attention onto his article, was the realization that ―under appropriate circumstances if we extrapolate [the quantum] formalism up from the microlevel to the macrolevel, there is no point at which any natural discontinuity occurs.‖ (p. 794) [my emphasis] He is unequivocal in his conclusion: ―My own belief is that the quantum measurement paradox can have no solution within our current reductionist worldview.‖ (p. 795) He opines that the quantum field theory is only a halfway house, sure to be supplanted by ―a radically new picture of physical reality whose nature we cannot at present even guess.‖ (p. 795) He adds: ―I for one intend to use my best efforts to hasten that day.‖
Enter the Reciprocal System
The Reciprocal System, with its new paradigm that (scalar) motion is the sole constituent of the physical universe, resolves all the difficulties. Larson‘s finding that space and time are discrete in nature and quantized answers the crucial question raised by Leggett above, that ―there is no point at which any natural discontinuity occurs.‖ Such a natural discontinuity does occur at the boundary of the natural unit of space. We have explained in detail in a previous article how at the boundary between the time region (the region inside unit space) and the familiar³ threedimensional spatial region a discontinuity occurs, and how the apparent directions of the forces applicable (the gravitation and the spacetime progression) change from outward to inward and vice versa. We have shown that this gives rise to the solid, liquid and the gaseous states. Larson‘s discovery that space and time are reciprocally related had been a crucially important finding. This led to the discovery of the existence of coordinate time analogous to the familiar coordinate space. We have shown³ that the phenomenon of spatial nonlocality arises due to the switching from the spatial reference frame to the temporal reference frame on entering the time region. This makes for the equal possibility of all the alternative paths, at the microlevel. At the macrolevel, however, this is not the case since the interaction is no longer in the time region but is in the conventional spatial frame. We
have further explained the concept of temporal nonlocality which is responsible for producing the statistical pattern out of the independent microlevel events of an ensemble. Larson pointed out the fact that correlated particles—like in the EPR experiment— maintain contiguity either in space (if separated in time) or in time (if separated in space). We also note that in the Reciprocal System there are two kinds of time: the coordinate time and the clock time. These are respectively the reversible time, t, which occurs in the equations of classical physics and quantum mechanics, and the irreversible time, T, which is relevant to living processes and consciousness. This distinction arises naturally and logically in the Reciprocal System, whereas in the world view of the current science, as Prigogine finds, it is to be introduced as an ad hoc necessity. Analogous to coordinate time and clock time we also find that there are two kinds of space: the familiar coordinate space and what Larson terms clock space. The latter manifests itself to us as an irreversible and continual expansion, as is evidenced in the recession of the distant galaxies. In the Reciprocal System there is no need for the purely ad hoc assumption of the ‗Big Bang‘ to account for the galactic recession! The Reciprocal System repudiates reductionism at the very outset. Larson finds the atom to be a unit of compound motion and without parts. The socalled subatomic particles turn out to be incomplete atoms and without parts. In the Reciprocal System there is no need for quarks and gluons, not even for nucleons. We can identify the cosmic ray decay particles and the exotic particles generated in the accelerators to be the transient apparitions of the atoms of the conjugate sector of the physical universe, which Larson refers to as the cosmic sector.¹ The cosmic sector is a complete duplicate of our material sector with the roles of space and time interchanged. Larson was able to explain the characteristics peculiar to biological systems by the possibility of conjoining the structural units pertaining to the cosmic sector with the material structures. Remember that the structural units of the cosmic sector are not aggregates in space. Rather, they are aggregates in time, and hence their control on the cells, for example, appears totally nonlocal. This makes it possible for the logical inclusion of selforganization and creativity among other things. All these insights about the quantum phenomena which the Reciprocal System is able to provide acquire even greater significance when we realize that its creator, Dewey Larson, had never explicitly thought out these aspects when he originally developed the theory. A perusal of his early correspondence with other students even reveals that he looked upon these quantummechanical phenomena, like the tunneling, with hesitation. (This, however, does not mean to underestimate his genius: he was so preoccupied with the overall development of the theory so as to establish its generality, accuracy and cogency that he hardly ever had the time to go into the quantum subtleties. He used to do all his typing work himself, and imagine that his typewriter didn't even have the '+' key: he used to type '', then backstep and overtype '/'.) Be that as it may, the actual fact is that the logical development of the Reciprocal System of theory comes up to match with the requirements to be satisfied by the ‗new picture of physical reality‘ we are looking for, and whose nature could not even be guessed by the scientists. The next question,
therefore, is since such a theory did appear now, whether or not we can see the truth of this!
References
1. Nehru, K. V. K., ―High Energy Physics and the Reciprocal System,‖ Reciprocity, Volume XXVI, No. 2, Summer, 1997. 2. Leggett, A. J., ―As a Martian might see us: Subversive reflections on the practice of physics,‖ Current Science, Volume 67, No. 11, 10 December 1994, pp. 785795 3. Nehru, K. V. K.,―‗Nonlocality‘ in the Reciprocal System,‖ Reciprocity, Volume XXVI, No. 1, Spring 1997, pp. 714
DIALOGUE WITH DEWEY B. LARSON, PART I
Reproduced below are comments on D. B. Larson‘s Nothing But Motion (NBM) and New Light on Space and Time (NLST) interspersed with responses by the author. The correspondence from which this dialogue is excerpted took place c. 1980. 1. KVK: p. 156, 13th line from bottom, NLST: Instead of the words ―basic vibrating unit‖ it must be ―rotational base.‖ p. 123, 10th line from bottom, NBM: in ―However, the rotational displacement...,‖ the word ―rotational‖ should be replaced by ―vibrational.‖ DBL: You are right on both of these items. I have expressed the first one in the correct manner on page 140 NBM. 2. KVK: There is a difference in the notations used for representing the rotations of atoms (e.g.: 2–1–0, p. 236, NLST) and of the subatomic particles (e.g.: 1–0–(1)). In the former the numbers represent double natural units whereas in the latter they represent single natural units. This divergence is a source of confusion as no attempt was made to clarify it, and both modes of notation were used at the same places, as in p. 236, NLST. DBL: I gave a brief explanation on page 231 NLST, but this book is, as I said in the preface, a ―bird‘s eye view,‖ and I could not go into much detail on anything. There is a more extended explanation on page 140 NBM, including setting up a new system of notation to avoid the difficulty that you point out. I do not believe it advisable to try to use the same notation for both atoms and subatomic particles, as this would lead to complications in the development of the theory. 3. KVK: p. 170, last but one para, NLST: It is not clear how a proton, M 1–1–(1), can acquire a positive electric charge (see p. 145, NBM). From what has been explained in the para cited above and elsewhere, as its electric rotational displacement is spacelike, the proton can only acquire a negative electric charge—like the electron. DBL: An electric charge is a onedimensional rotational vibration. In order to be stable and identifiable as a separate entity it must oppose the rotation with which it is associated, but this does not have to be the rotation in the electric dimension. The charge can oppose the rotation in one of the magnetic dimensions. Since the magnetic rotation is always positive in the material sector, this means that all material elements can take positive electric charges under appropriate conditions. In fact, at high temperatures, such as those in the stars, all elements are positively charged. 4. KVK: On p. 1556, NLST, the apparent reduction in the velocity of light in a material medium is attributed to the additional space involved due to the
rotational spacelike displacements included in the structure of most atoms of matter. On this score, the apparent velocity of light in a material medium with only positive rotational displacements should be greater than c! DBL: I am not quite clear as to the point of your comment. I will say, however, that ordinary matter is a time structure; that is, one in which n units of time are associated with each unit of space (as we see the situation in the context of the conventional fixed system of reference). When the photon passes through this matter, the total time involved in the motion is increased by the addition of the time component of this matter. The photon speed, the ratio of space to time, therefore decreases. Conversely, in the cosmic sector, where matter is a space structure, the speed of light is increased in passing through cosmic matter. 5. KVK: Speaking of the progression of the photon in the free dimension it is remarked that ―...the combination of a vibratory motion and a linear motion perpendicular to the line of vibration results in a path which has the form of a sine curve.‖ (p. 51, NBM) In the case of HF radiation, the space component of the vibration progresses unidirectionally while it is the time component that oscillates back and forth. As such ―the linear motion perpendicular to the line of vibration‖ referred to above cannot be the scalar progression of the space component of the general spacetime progression. Is the sine curve form, then, taken to be pertaining to the threedimensional time? DBL: The frequency of the radiation is irrelevant. In either case, HF or LF, the progression of the natural reference system in the dimension of the vibration is neutralized by the reversals. This permits a progression to take place in a perpendicular dimension. The scalar motion (progression) in this second dimension is totally independent of that in the first, as scalar quantities cannot be combined vectorially. [KVK: Apparently, my question was not clear here. What I meant was: a progressing sine wave has two components— (i) the oscillation in the lateral dimension and (ii) the uniform forward progression. Now my point is, that both these components must be of the same nature—either spatial or temporal. Thus, if the oscillation component is in time, the progression component in the perpendicular dimension to be compounded with this has to be in time also; and the sine wave must be envisaged as occurring in threedimensional time and not in threedimensional space.] 6. KVK: Explaining the effect of adding rotation to the vibrational units of a photon, it is said that the ―remaining vibrational units of the originat photon continue as a photon of lower displacement‖ (p. 123, 3rd para, NBM). But it is not clear how the detachment of one of the vibrational units (which are anyway discrete) reduce the displacement of the original photon. DBL: The units that I am talking about here are units of displacement—that is,
units of speed. (See explanation of the use of the term ―displacement‖ on pages 119121 NBM.) When one unit is detached to join the rotational motion, the photon continues on its way with one less unit of speed (a lower frequency). 7. KVK: The liquid state is the result of vanishing of the force of cohesion in one dimension (and the gaseous state in three dimensions). However, whether the vanishing of the cohesion in two dimensions results in any specificalty observable distinction is not made clear. Is it to be equated to the vapor state? DBL: Probably. I had not covered this subject fully twenty years ago when I interrupted my research work in order to start publication of my results, and I have not been able to get back to it since. My conclusions in this area are therefore somewhat tentative. 8. KVK: p. 173, top para, NLST: Not only this—if the hypothesis of the tendency of atoms to assume a stabler structure like that of inert gases by gaining an electron is true, should not the atoms, say, of chlorine, tend to transform to those of argon, if placed in an environment of negative electrons, by absorbing single electrons? DBL: It looks that way to me, too, but I suppose we will have to let the supporters of conventional theory answer this question. 9. KVK.: p. 50, bottom para, NBM: It is not clear why do the inward/outward scalar reversals result in vectorial direction reversal in only one dimension? Why they do not produce a three or twodimensional vibrating unit? DBL: We are dealing with a scalar motion, and the only latitude that we have, at this stage of the stepbystep development, is to change from + to  and vice versa. This does not necessarily preclude introducing additional dimensions of motion later in the development, but multidimensional scalar motion has some unfamiliar features. I intend to discuss this type of motion at considerable length in Volume II. 10. KVK: p. 1956, NLST: In view of the dimensional differences in the origin of electrical, magnetic and gravitational forces which are actually motions of the same general nature, it is shown that the force exerted by an electric charge on an uncharged mass is only 1/c² as great as the force on an object with a charge of comparable magnitude. However, no mention is made of the force exerted by the electric charge on a magnetic charge, which, though it must be less than the force of an electric charge on electric charge, must, nonetheless, be greater than the force exerted by electric charge on uncharged mass. Hence this must be within the possibillty of detection, like the weak force exerted by a magnetic charge (referred to in the para cited) on a (magnetically uncharged) mass unit. DBL: I have not arrived at a firm conclusion on this point as yet. It had occurred to me, and I have given it some consideration. So far, I am inclined to believe that
it will be ruled out by the directional orientation of the electric and magnetic forces. 11. KVK: Within the gravitational limit of a material aggregate there is net inward scalar motion. As such, what would happen to a photon emitted from the object, within the gravitational timit? As the photon has no independent motion but is only carried away by the general spacetime progression and since the net motion now is inward , how can we account for the velocity, c, of the photon and its eventual emergence from the domain of the gravitational limit? I think, the argument that the above net inward motion within the gravitational limit belongs only to the material aggregate and does affect the photon is not valid. Even if such an argument is proferred, it raises another difficulty: how to account for the bending of light rays in a gravitational field gradient. DBL:
Diagram (a) shows how the photon motion P and gravitation G, without any modifying influences, would look relative to the natural reference system. The photon is motionless, while gravitation has an inward speed 1+x. Diagram (b) shows the same situation relative to the conventional fixed reference system. Now the photon has an outward speed 1, while the inward gravitational speed has been reduced to x. Diagram (c) shows the usual situation encountered in practice. The gravitational speed x has been modified slightly by random motion, and now has a magnitude y, still very small compared to 1. A photon emitted from the gravitating object moves outward from that object at unit speed. 12. KVK: The massless subatomic particles do not have net timelike displacement in three dimensions like the atoms. As such why are they not carried away by the general spacetime progression, since inward gravitational motion is not present to counteract the outward scalar progression? Doubtless, they differ from the photons thus carried away by the spacetime progression in having additionally rotational displacements. But so long as the net rotational displacement is in less than three dimensions, the spacetime progression should carry it off in the free dimension. Perhaps this could be the reason that this class of subatomic particles is not observed (p.142, NBM).It is put forward that the uncharged electron, for example, cannot move through space as its net displacement is spacelike and the relation of space to space is not motion. However, since the one unit of twodimensional rotation is balanced by the unit of negative vibration, and the net spacelike rotation is only in the electric dimension, is there no dimension
effectively free so that the scalar spacetime progression applies in that dimension? DBL: These massless particles undoubtedly move at the speed of light, as you suggest. Our inability to observe them is not due to their speed, but to the fact that, except in the case of the neutrino, we have not, thus far, identified processes in which they take part. Experience with the neutrino suggests that some of the effects of the other massless particles may also be detectable if we look in the right places. 13. KVK: Instead of a RV¹ displacement being added to an existing rotational displacement as in the case of atoms, is it possible to have a rotational vibration (of opposite spacetime character) directly added to the linear vibrating unit that is a photon? For example, a negative electric charge, RV¹, can be imposed on a photon, LV¹+? DBL: No. A charge is a rotational vibration. As such, it can only exist as a modifier of a rotation. Otherwise there would be nothing to constrain it into the rotational path, and it would revert to the status of a linear vibration. 14. KVK.: Chapter 13, NLST: The discussion does not bring out some important aspects of the difference in the characteristics of electric and magnetic charges compared to those of gravitation. Firstly: Like electric charges repel each other and unlike charges attract. In order to explain this should it be taken that the scalar effect of the charge is both inward and outward in spacetime at the same time? Secondly: The gravitational force, unlike that due to charges, cannot be screened off (p. 60, line 3, NBM) because gravitational motion is inward scalar motion with respect to the general structure of spacetime. Now if, the motion which gives rise to the electric or magnetic forces is a motion of the same general nature as that of gravitation, being the motion of the individual atom or particle with respect to the general structure of spacetime (p. 186, NLST), it is difficult to see how these forces can be screened off as is possible actually. As regards the first point the following line of explanation may be considered. The negative electric charge, being a timelike RV displacement, must have an attendant scalar translational motion in space (just like the gravitational motion of a positive rotation). Like the positive rotation, it may appear that this RV displacement should therefore involve a scalar inward motion in space. However, ―...because of its vibrational character each unit of this charge is only half as effective as a unit of unidirectional rotation.‖ (p. 190, NLST) Consequently, this accompanying scalar translational motion is midway between the general outward spacetime progression and the inward scalar translational motion of a rotational unit. Thus it appears as a scalar outward motion in space from the point of view of
the gravitationallybound stationary reference system. This manifests as mutual repulsion between the negative electric charges. On the other hand, the rotational vibration that is a positive electric charge, is a spacelike RV displacement. Hence it involves a scalar translational effect similar to that of a unidirectional rotation that is spacelike (motion in time). But the scalar translational motion of spacelike rotational displacement units (i.e., rotation in time) is the gravitation in time. As such the spacelike RV displacement too involves a scalar inward motion in time. Once again, as in the previous case, because of the fact that the vibrational rotation is onty half as effective as a unidirectional rotation, this attendent scalar inward motion in time of a positive electric charge falls midway between the general outward spacetime progression and the inward gravitational motion in time. Now, in order to understand how this appears from the point of view of the stationary spatial reference system, we must recall that in the context of such a reference system, the progression of the time component is the same as that in the natural reference system. Consequently, the scalar translational motioh of the positive electric charge is apparent as inward in time. This manifests itself to us as mutual repulsion of the positive charges, since the inward scalar motion in time is tantamount to outward scalar motion in space. Finally, the relationship of negative to positive electric charges is that of scalar outward motion in space to scalar inward motion in time and manifests to us as mutual attraction of the positive and negative electric charges. Regarding the possibility of screening off the electrical charge effects: once we see them as basically scalar motions of the individual charges, screening becomes impossible, like in the case of gravitation. The following interpretation may be relevant. The screening is a balancing of the inward (or outward, as the case may be) scalar motion by a vectorial motion (i.e., ―coordinate‖ as versus ―clock‖ motion) in the dimension (or dimensions) concerned, by the screening object. This characteristic of the screen, the generation of motion oppositely directed to that of the scalar translational effect of the charge is not unlike the process of acquisition of gravitational charges due to captured charged neutrinos. As given, since ―... the natural unit equivalent of a magnetic (2dimensional) displacement n is 4n² ...,‖ i.e., (2n)² , the natural unit equivalent of a magnetic displacement unit of 1 is 2² = 4, and in equivalent electric units is 4/2 = 2 (in view of the double units we are working with). On the other hand, the natural unit equivalent of the magnetic displacement unit of 1 is ( 2)²= 2 and in equivalent electric units is 2/2 = l. Thus, it does not seem to matter, at unit level, whether we consider the first unit of magnetic displacement as 1 or 1, only the latter is actually relevant, since this alone gives us the correct atomic number sequence. This important point is not brought out in the discussion and the whole issue is glossed over with nothing more than one sentence, ―At the unit level dimensional
differences have no numerical effect, i.e., 1³ = 1² = 1.‖ (p. 128, NBM). Indeed, the role of unity, as a natural datum, is of farreaching significance. The requirement of the first effective unit of the 2dimensional displacement being 1 instead of 1 can be seen to be arising out of the following. The first unit of displacement, from the rotational base, has a unique and distinguishing characteristic in that it marks the emergence of ―something physical compared to the prevenient nothingness.‖ Inasmuch as this is so, the difference between the first unit and the rest is not only one of degree—but something else besides. The addition of the first displacement unit involves a transit from the region inside the unit displacement to that outside. Hence the dictum that ―... all of the physical phenomena of the inside region ... are ... second power expressions of the corresponding quantities of the outside region‖ (p. 155, NBM) applies here. Consequently, the 1 unit displacement, when looked at from the viewpoint of physical manifestation—i.e., from the ―somethings‖ side of the unit boundary as against the ―nothings‖ side—is to be regarded as 1. It must be noted that the setting up of units and measurement procedures from the standpoint of the natural reference system, in terms of speed displacements results in the relation between the algebra of displacements and the algebra of the conventional speed units being exponential in nature. This is to say that the addition of displacements is equivalent to the multiplication of the corresponding speeds. Suppose we define the speed displacement d, of a speed v, as d = 1g c  1g v, since it is a deviation from the unit speed, c; all speeds like 1/n give positive displacements, lg n, while speeds like n give negative displacements, 1g n, and unit speed c gives zero displacement, 1g 1. Though this definition does not exactly tie in with the treatment in the book, it nonetheless serves to demonstrate the general exponential nature of the relationship mentioned above. It also illustrates how the addition of a motion of (n1) positive displacement units to another of (n1) negative displacement units produces zero displacement (p. 121, NBM), since in dealing with the corresponding speeds we need to multiply the speed n (represented by (n1) negative displacement units) by speed 1/n ((n1) positive displacement units) to obtain the unit speed (zero displacement). DBL: Your criticism of the lack of coverage of electricity and magnetism is valid, but here again you should bear in mind that a ―bird‘s eye view‖ does not see everything. I will give you a much broader view of these subjects in Volume II of the new edition. As brought out in Volume I (particularly in Chapter 18), linear motion is limited to two full units, from +1 to 1, as seen in our fixed reference system. In terms of the natural reference system both +1 and 1 are zero, the + zero and the  zero, we may say, if we look at the situation from the standpoint of what is happening in the region between the two. The motion of an electric charge is always outward,
but the motion of a positive charge is outward from the positive zero, while that of a negative charge is outward from the negative zero. Two positive charges move away from each other, as shown in the upper tine of the diagram below. Two negative charges also move outward away from each other, as shown in the lower line. But a positive charge and a negative charge move toward each other, as indicated by the middle line, even though they are both moving outward from their respective zero points.
Screening is simply a matter of mathematics. A+B is always greater than A, but AB can take any value. Since all gravitational motion is in the same direction, the effect of introducing matter between objects X and Y is to increase the original gravitational motion A to A+B. But since the motion of charges can take either direction, the introduction of matter between charges X and Y may have a resultant AB. 15. KVK: Regarding the lifetimes of the cosmic decay particles (Ch. 15, NBM) the following points may be considered. The spatial extension of the cosmic atom is the analog of the lifetime of the atom in the material sector. As such the lifetimes of the decaying catoms must bear a relation to their spatial extensions before the decay. The correlation of lifetimes with the dimensions shown in p. 192, (NBM), can be arrived at by tying together some loose ends as below (with appropriate interchange of the words ―space‖ and ―time‖): i. The limiting spatial extension of the incoming atom in each dimension is one natural unit (i.e., s in conventional units). Thus the extension space involved in two dimensions becomes s², and in three dimensions, s³. The temporal equivalent of this spatial extension s is s/c. ―..If the motion is onedimensional, all of the effects can be transmitted. If it is twodimensional, the fraction transmitted ... is 1/c of the total ... The transmitted fraction is only 1/c² in the case of threedimensional rotation.‖ (p. 185, NLST) ―...The time region speed, and all quantities derived therefrom, which means all of the physical phenomena of the inside region ... are ...second power expressions of the corresponding quantities of the outside region.‖ (p. 155, NBM)
ii. iii.
iv.
The Table below shows the result of applying these criteria (i) to (iv) above to the various dimensional motion. Number of Dimensions Criterion No. 1 i ii iii iv Result in secs. s s/c (s/c) (s/c)½ 1.233148 × 108 2 s² s²/c (s²/c)(1/c) [(s²/c)(1/c)]½ 1.520655 ×1016 3 s³ s³/c (s³/c)(1/c²) [(s³/c)(1/c²)]½ 1.875193 × 1024
On the other hand, if the extension space involved in the two and threedimensional cases is respectively /4s² and /6s³ (based on statistical circular and spherical symmetry in coordinate space) instead of s² and s³, we have the calculated values of the lifetimes in the two and threedimensional cases as respectively 1.347645×1016 and 1.356892×1024 seconds. DBL: You may have something here. I do not have time to make a full evaluation of your proposal now. In fact, I have a general policy of not making a quick decision on any new idea, whether it is my own or comes from someone else. But it appears to me that this may be the kind of a thing that I was looking for (unsuccessfully) at the time I wrote Chapter 15. I suggest that you prepare a paper on this subject and send it to Professor Meyer for publication in Reciprocity, so that the NSA members can take a look at it. 16. KVK: The general spacetime progression of our universe is an outward scalar progression. How is this to be distinguished from one with both space and time progressing inward? The universe of motion with both space and time progressing outward is indistinguishable from that with both space and time progressing inward. In addition, both these cases are indistinguishable from a third case where for one unit both space and time progress outward and in the next unit both of them progress inward, alternately. It is not clear how this indistinguishability is built into the conceptual framework of the theory. Moreover, how (or whether) our consciousness has come to regard it as an outward progression is not evident. DBL: The existence of a physical universe is possible only if gravitation is inward, so that the originally widely dispersed units of matter move closer together and eventually reach positions in which they can interact. This means that the arbitrary fixed reference system that we set up on the basis of such
interactions is moving inward relative to the natural reference system. The apparent progression of the natural reference system is therefore outward. 17. KVK: ―...deviations from unit speed ... are accomplished by means of reversals of the direction of the progression of either space or time.‖ (p. 75, NBM) What about the case of conjoint reversals of both space and time, like: s/+t , +s/t , s/+t.... . etc.? That is, for one unit space progresses inward while time progresses outward. In the next unit space progresses outward and time progresses inward. Such a basic motion has a speed of 1 that is unvarying and must be both an independent and a stable motion. Can we identify the above ―coupledvibration‖ with any physical entity? The above may even result in rotation. At any rate, the motion is similar to the inward translational aspect of the material gravitation. DBL: A speed of unity, 1/1, is no motion at all relative to the natural system. We cannot distinguish between no motion in space and no motion in time. [KVK: But reply does not answer the point I raised here. I was asking whether this ―coupled vibration,‖ with speed of 1 like the gravitational motion, could be realized in some physical entity?] 18. KVK: I find that the following concepts are not explained adequately, with the result the reader (who is being exposed the first time) is left with many nagging why and hows: a. the interregional ratio (p 154, NBM) b. secondary mass (p. 161, NBM) c. electric mass and mass of electric charge (p. 163, NBM) d. secondary neutral valence DBL: I am not sure just what you have in mind here. Are you merely suggesting that I should explain these points more fully in later publications? (in which case, I thank you for the suggestion), or do you have some questions that you want answered? (in which case I would like to have something more specific). 19. KVK: p. 100, NBM: Continuing the line of argument (in the text), if we substitute an object with a speed less than c for each of the photons, instead of for only one (as suggested in the lastbutone para), we arrive at the true relative v speed of the two objects as (v1+v2)/(v1+v2) = 1 always. Thus the true relative speed always turns out to be unity for any objects—not necessarily only for photons. DBL: The time component of speed always includes the time of the progression (clock time), regardless of whether the moving objects are, like the photons, moving at the unit speed of the progression, or at some different rate. Thus the denominator is always 1 ± v, never v alone.
[KVK: Does the answer here mean that the relative speed of two objects with speeds v1 and v2 (in natural units) is given by (v1+v2)/(1+v1+v2) since the total time involved would be (1+v1+v2)?] 20. KVK.: 1289, NBM: It is not clear why the relation that ―...a magnetic displacement n is equivalent to 2n² electric displacement units‖ does not hold good for n=1. For n=1, the equivalent electric disptacement works out to be 2, by this formula. However, in the development of the series of elements, the magnetic displacement 1 is counted as an equivalent electric displacement of 1 unit and not 2. There is definitely a hiatus in the reasoning here, an examination of which may lead to some important insight and clarify, among others, the case of half units represented in M ½½0, for example. Under these circumstances, it is not difficult to see that halving the displacement unit amounts to taking the squareroot of the corresponding speed and does not involve any half unit of speed (i.e., if d = 1g n, then ½d = ½1g n = 1g n). For particles below the unit level, as in the case of subatomic particles, this gives rise to the unique possibility of positing ½ unit displacement (141, NBM) because of the idempotent nature of unity (i.e., 1= 1), without involving anything less than unit speed. DBL: I don‘t believe that I get the point of your argument on this item. So far as I can see, we are applying the same relation all the way through the series of elements. The sequence of magnetic additions is this: Rotation Net speed Electric Equiv. Rotational base (2) Effective zero (unity) Helium Neon Argon 21. We start with a rotational base for each of the two rotating systems of the atom, with net speed zero in all dimensions. Then we add one magnetic rotational unit to bring the effective speed to unity, the natural zero level. (The language that I used in the book may have been somewhat misleading, although I did say specifically that the purpose of this first magnetic unit is to bring the scalar speed to zero on the natural basis.) Since this noneffective unit uses up one of the n = 1 spots, there is only 2x 1² group of elements, and a 2 x 2² group follows, as shown in the tabulation. 22. KVK: p. 154, NBM: The interregional ratio is calculated on the basis that ―for each of the 128 possible rotational positions there is an additional 2/9 vibrational 100 110 210 220 320 000 100 110 210 220 0 0 2 10 18
} n=1 } n=2
position...‖ The ratio is thus found to be 128(1+2/9) = 156.44. However, in the case of subatomic particies, which are single rotating systems, only one, and not two, of the possible nine vibrational positions are occupied. Thus the interregional ratio must be 128(1+1/9) = 142.22 and not 156.44. DBL: You are correct. The 142.22 ratio must be substituted for 156.44 in the appropriate applications. I said this on page 163 NBM. This completes the items that I received from Professor Meyer. I have tried to be responsive to the questions that you have asked, but it cannot be expected that all of my answers will be satisfactory. So I want to assure you that I will be glad to discuss any of them at more length if there are issues that you want to raise. It is apparent from your comments that you have gained a good deal of insight into the structure of the theory already, and I would like to help clear away any obstacles that still remain in the way of a full understanding. It has become quite clear since publication of Nothing But Motion that the scientific community in general has very little comprehension of the scalar type of motion that plays such a large part in my theoretical development, although scalar motion is not something that is peculiar to my theoretical system. It is something that exists as one of the phenomena of the physical universe, and any physical theory should be prepared to deal with it. Since it is a very important factor in my theoretical structure, and so generally neglected in current practice, I am planning on including an extended discussion of this type of motion in Volume II. I put a part of this discussion into a memorandum that I used at the recent NSA conference at Huntsville, Alabama. I believe that this should be of some interest to you, and I am therefore enclosing a copy.
DIALOGUE WITH DEWEY B. LARSON, PART II
Below are reproduced further comments on D. B. Larson‘s Nothing But Motion (NBM) and on Quasars & Pulsars (QP), interspersed with responses by the author. The correspondence from which this dialogue is excerpted took place c. 1980. 1. KVK: Ref. p.46, para 2, QP: If the n massunits of a material aggregate are dispersed in time, no observer can encounter all of them at the same time. For example, all of the atoms in an object may not manifest at the same time because of the differences in their coordinate time, even if they are at the same stage of the progression. DBL: Two atoms are in contact when they are within the equilibrium distance in either space or time, regardless of how far apart they may be in the other. They have to be at the same stage of the progression to make contact in space, but this has nothing to do with time. It is a result of the fact that even though two objects may be at the same point in the reference system, they are not at the same location in space unless they are also at the same stage of the progression. 2. KVK: Ref. p. 48, para 2, QP: This example of the two cardboard disks gives rise to two possibilities, which are polar opposites as far as the mutual direction of the coupled rotations are concerned. For a given direction of rotation of disk A, disk B could be posited either as rotating in the clockwise sense or in the counterclockwise sense. Do these dual possibilities in the model refer to any analogously distinguishable categories of the double rotating system of the atoms? DBL: I have not considered this issue previously, and I do not want to express any firm conclusions without more extended consideration, but from my findings in the fields of electricity and magnetism, I would tentatively conclude that reversal of the direction of rotation would reverse the scalar direction. The resulting motion would be incompatible with the atomic structure. 3. KVK: Ref. p. 98, line 7, QP: Should not the word ‗active‘ be replaced by the word ‗inactive‘? DBL: No. Beyond the unit level (the speed of light) motion takes place in two scalar dimensions. 4. KVK: Ref. p.98, lines 1316, QP: Firstly, it is not clear how ‗only one dimension of the explosion speed is coincident with the normal recession.‘ For instance the recession itself is not limited only to our lineofsight. Secondly, it is not clear how the excess redshift and the recession redshift are to be connected, or why the former is proportional to the square root of the latter. DBL: These items are also connected with the concept of scalar dimensions. I am enclosing copies of two pages of the introduction to Volume II of the new edition
of the ―Structure‖, which should help to explain what I mean here. Motion at speeds beyond the unit level involves both a space magnitude and a time magnitude. It is therefore a twodimensional scalar motion, only one dimension of which can be parallel to the dimension of the reference system. 5. KVK: p.154, line 18, NBM: Should it not read: ―...the ratio of the total magnitude of motion to the transmitted effect‖ rather than the converse? DBL: Yes. 6. KVK: p.154, lines 87 from bottom, NBM: The possible vibrational positions for the twodimensional basic rotation do not seem to me to be nine, in view of the fact that the respective orientations of the initial vibrating units of both rotating systems are not independent of each other, after the formation of the double rotating system. It can be seen that the number of possible orientations for the vibrational displacement of one of the rotating systems of the atom is three. However, referring back to the twodisk analogy (p. 48, QP), the number of possible orientations for the initial vibration of the second rotating system is only two, because one of the three dimensions is already occupied by the first and there is no superimposition. As such, the total number of vibrational possibilities is six, of which one is occupied. Thus the interregional ratio must be 128(1 + 1/6) =149.33. DBL: I cannot agree with your conclusions here: There are nine different combinations irrespective of geometrical considerations. 7. KVK: p.163, NBM: In the calculation of the unit of electric mass, why is the 1/9 vibrational factor relevant, since what we are concerned with is the electric rotation. DBL: The 1/9 factor applies to the distribution in space. The same factor applies to both the distribution of the electric rotation and the distribution of the possible positions of the vibrational units, but this does not mean that there is any connection between the two. 8. KVK: p.6, para 3, Advance Printing of the first 11 chapters of Volume II: What is orientation? What is meant by the rotational force acting only during a portion of unit progression? DBL: I use the word ―orientation‖ in the sense defined in the dictionary; that is, position with respect to the environment. I suggest that you review the discussion of orientation in the references listed under that heading in the index of NBM, page 291.
9. KVK: The basic scalar reversals that make possible speeds other than unity are fundamental in the Theory. As such, a thorough understanding of their nature is important. The givenness of the 1/1 unidirectional scalar progression is understandable. However, how the reversal of the scalar direction of the progression is accomplished in nature is not explained. In the existing pattern of thinking one posits a cause for a systematic variation of a state of affairs. Inasmuch as these reversals are systematic and not random (in order to produce a speed other than unity) it is not clear what sustains them. Why should the reversals occur at all since the ‗peace‘ of the unidirectional progression has a greater probability? They stand merely as a logical necessity for the subsequent development of the theory. DBL: Aristotle and his contemporaries insisted that continuity of position is the only condition that can be maintained without the application of some external influence. One of the essential steps toward a theory of motion was a recognition of the tact that a continuous uniform change of position is just as fundamental, and just as permanent, as a continuity of position. The essential. feature is the continuity. What is needed now is recognition of the fact that the same considerations apply to direction. A continuous uniform change of direction is just as fundamental, and just as probable a condition, as a continuous direction. A motion with a continuous uniform change of direction is, of course, a simple harmonic motion. There is no more need for anything to sustain a simple harmonic motion than a unidirectional motion. 10. KVK: What is the nature of the connection between the scalar reversals and the vectorial directional reversals associated with them? In the case of a vibration that is a photon, since the vectorial reversal occurs at the end of each unit, it is not always in phase with the scalar reversal. Obviously the two (the scalar and the associated vectorial) directional reversals are connected: but as this connection is not explained, one wonders how the vectorial reversal ‗knows‘ when to be in phase with the scalar reversal and when not to be, in order to produce a regular oscillation pattern. DBL: The further changes in the pattern of reversals that, as you say, produce speeds other than unity, are mathematical possibilities. Each corresponds to a particular displacement magnitude (a particular number of units of energy in the phenomena of ordinary life). This displacement (or energy) content is what maintains the constant reversal pattern. The pattern cannot change unless energy is added or withdrawn. 11. KVK: The way the reversals are explained to be occurring, they can give rise to odd frequencies in a straightforward manner. However, the even frequencies are pictured to be accomplished by the systematic compounding of odd frequencies. Thus, for example, frequency 4 is obtained by the averaging of the multiple units of 5 and 3 that occur alternately. But if it is so possible to accomplish frequency 4 by way of compounding of 5 and 3, [(5+3)/2 = 4], why is it not possible to obtain
nonintegral frequencies, such as 4.33 for example, by the compounding of multiple units thus: (5+5+3)/3 = 4.33 etc.? Do we have to take recourse to an ad hoc constraint to avoid this? DBL: In view of the systematic relation between number and probability (see item No. 13 below), the only place where two numbers are equally probable is the midpoint between successive numbers. In this situation (and no other), probability usually dictates an equal distribution between the two. In a situation such as that we are now considering, this distribution must be exactly equal in order to produce a regular pattern. 12. KVK: In the notation abc of the atomic rotations, ‗a‘ stands for the principal magnetic rotation and ‗b‘ for the subordinate magnetic rotation. The principal magnetic rotation is said to be effective in two dimensions while the subordinate magnetic rotation in one dimension (p.128, NBM). How is this so? as both of them are twodimensional rotations, each must be effective in two dimensions. D B.L.: Two independent rotations of a disk (a onedimensional rotation of a line) would produce two spheres, but a rotation of two interpenetrated disks produces a spheroid, either an oblate spheroid with a volume proportional to a²b, or a prolate spheroid with a volume proportional to ab² . 13. KVK: Ref. p.48, para 3, QP: ―...as a general principle low numbers are more probable than higher numbers...‖ Why should this be so? To be sure, this ‗general principle‘ is not incorporated in the Fundamental Postulates. DBL: You can demonstrate this with the standard coin tossing experiment. You will get two successive heads very often, three much less frequently, four still less often and so on. The same principle applies throughout the universe. 14. KVK: The electric charge is a onedimensional rotational vibration, and is normally a modification of the existing onedimensional rotation in the electric dimension. But the exception is the proton which is M 11(1). In this case, if the electric charge is to be a modification of the rotation in the electric dimension it would be a negative charge, as in the case of an electron M 00(1), since the rotation in the electric dimension is negative. As such, it is taken that this electric charge is a modification of the twodimensional positive rotation (in the magnetic dimension). Consequently it will be a positive electric charge as we want. But why does this positive electric charge, which is onedimensional, take precedence over a magnetic charge, which should more naturally be the appendage to the basic twodimensional rotation in M 11(1)? Compare with the case of the neutrino M ½½(1) which easily acquires a magnetic charge (on its 1 unit twodimensional rotation) rather than an electric charge. DBL: A charge opposes the rotation to which it is applied under ordinary circumstances, and in the particles (single rotating systems) the units are equal in
size. Thus a negative charge added to the proton, M 11( l ), would increase its net total displacement to 2. As noted in NBM, it appears that twounit single rotations are unstable, and tend to decay back to simpler components, unless they are able to acquire the second rotating system that is required for converting to mass 1 hydrogen. A second point in this connection is that a magnetic charge is not acquired easily. On the contrary, the evidence indicates (although the reason is still unknown) that acquisition of such a charge by a neutrino is a very rare event. Concentrations of charged neutrinos are produced only by an enormous number of interactions with matter over vast periods of time. 15. KVK: While a neutrino M ½½(1) can easily acquire a magnetic charge, why does it not happen to a massless neutron M ½½0? (Of course, if it thus gets magnetically charged, its potential mass becomes actual.) DBL: A positive magnetic charge added to either the neutrino or the massless neutron cancels the positive rotational displacement. The effective displacement of the charged neutrino is equal to that of the uncharged electron, and it acts like the electron. The effective displacement of a charged massless neutron would be that of the rotational base, zero, and there would be no effects that could be observed. 16. KVK: Why is the photon M 11(1), having net rotational displacement in three dimensions and a mass of one atomic weight unit, not observed in the uncharged state, when theory does not preclude this? DBL: The answer to this question is still in doubt. It may be that there are too many neutrinos in the environment. As indicated in NBM, page 215, an uncharged proton and a neutrino can combine to form the mass one hydrogen isotope. It is possible that the uncharged proton never gets a chance to stay around long enough to be observed. 17. KVK: p. 52, lines 14.15, QP: ―The atomic number of any ... element is equal to its equivalent electric time displacement less two units.‖ Take for instance the case of He: 210. After accounting for one twodimensional unit counteracting the opposite displacement of the basic photon we are left with a net displacement of 110. This must naturally yield an electric equivalent of (2×1²) + (2×1²) = 4 displacement units. What is the reason for specifying that one of these two (2×1²) units is not to be counted? DBL: As you say, the helium atom has net displacements 110. If we eliminate one magnetic unit, we have the combination 100 (or 110 in the regular atomic notation). This is not an atom because it does not have enough effective displacement to form a double system. It is a base for the atomic rotation in the same way that the rotational base, M 000, is for rotation in general. We might call it an atom of zero atomic number. Thus there is only one 2×1² group of elements.
18. KVK: Is not the inward translational effect of the scalar rotation (gravity) proportional to the number of rotational displacement units? If yes, since the maximum number of unidirectional threedimensional displacement units is 8, how to justify the number of units of the inward motion when it exceeds 8, as is the case of elements with atomic number greater than 8? DBL: Gravitation is not a unidirectional motion. It is a rotationally distributed scalar motion. See the memorandum on scalar motion that I sent to you. 19. K.V..K. Ref. p. 98, para 2, QP: The ‗units of motion‘ referred to here are displacement units, aren‘t they? Why do these 7 units get distributed only between two dimensions? Why not between the three dimensions? Since the direction in time taken by the ultrahigh speed unit has no relation to the direction in space, probability principles require equal distribution among the three dimensions of space. DBL: Motion in the region above unit speed takes place in two scalar dimensions because of the second unit status of this region. All that this means is that it takes two numerical magnitudes to define the motion, rather than the one that is sufficient for any motion below unit speed. It has nothing to do with the dimensions of the spatial reference system. 20. KVK: Then again, the connection between the recession redshift and the quasar redshift is not clearly explained. The recession redshift depends on the particular moment at which the explosion happens to take place. As such it should not bear a strict logical relation to the explosion redshift, since the time of occurrence of the explosion is determined by various local conditions and not strictly by its distance from us. DBL: The difficulty that you mention with respect to the relation between the redshifts is merely a matter of the time required to transmit information. If an explosion occurs at a distance x from our location, the corresponding distance in the explosion dimension is 3.5 x½. This is the actual separation between us and the quasar in this dimension. But we see the explosion at spatial distance x, and we cannot get the quasar distance information instantaneously; that is, the quasar cannot appear to jump directly from x to 3.5 x½ What happens is that this information comes to us as fast as it can. The quasar appears to move at the speed of light in the explosion dimension until it reaches the 3.5 x½ distance, after which it recedes normally. The time required to make this adjustment is very short, and it is propable that we have never observed a quasar in the adjustment period. 21. KVK: Ref. p. 1089, QP: Does the same gravitation oppose normal recession as well as the explosion? Or is it the portion left after countering the recession that is available to oppose the explosion? On p.109, lines 12, what is meant by the dimension of recession and the dimension of quasar motion? Does it mean that since 1 unit recession is already present in one dimension of the three dimensions,
the explosion motion takes the remaining two? DBL: Yes, gravitation opposes each motion independently. In application to scalar motion, I am using the term ―dimension‖ in the mathematical sense. An ndimensional scalar motion is one that requires n separate numbers to define it. The example given in my dictionary is this: ―a²b²c is a term of five dimensions‖. Only one of these scalar dimensions of motion can be represented in the conventional spatial reference system. Any number of motions of an object that can be represented in the system can be combined vectorially into a onedimensional resultant, and the magnitude of the resultant can be expressed by one number. What the reference aystem does is to subdivide the one dimension of motion into components by relating it to three dimensions of space. The two dimensions of motion above unit speed are scalar dimensions, and they are not vector quantities. 22. KVK: Ref, p.123, lines 1011, QP: But when the speed is changing should not one take the integral of v·dt as the distance and not simply v·t? D.B.L.: I see no advantage in so doing. What we are interested in is the average speed. 23. 23. KVK: p.60, para 3, QP: This phenomenon of positive ionization resulting from high temperature must be observable experimentally. It would then constitute an element of validition of the theory. DBL: This is the ionization that the physiciats and the astronomers talk about. They attribute it to the loss of successive electrons from the atomic structure as the temperature increases. My finding is that units of vibrational motion are added. This is, of course, a deduction from basic principles, but it is worth noting that it produces a more logical result. An increase in the energy content of the environment ought to result in processes that gain energy from the environment, rather than processes that lose energy to the environment. 24. KVK: Ref. p.66, para 2, QP: Here is another venue for observational verification. During the past millions of years of the age of our planet, the local level of magnetic ionization must have increased. Can we devise experiments to measure this and then to correlate this change with (i) the change of isotopic proportions in the earth‘s crust and (ii) the shift of the radioactive stability limit of the heavy elements that took place during this period? Also we may verify this correlation by comparing with systems of matter under a different ambient magnetic ionization level, as on distant planets. DBL: The question as to when the magnetic ionization level on earth stepped up to the present level , which is almost certainly one unit, is not definitely indicated by the information now available. There are reasons to believe, however, that this change antedated the formation of the Solar System.
25. KVK: The halflives of electron and proton are estimated to be about 2x1021 years and 1027 years respectively. Could the chance encounters with the catoms (moving inward in time) be the cause for these spontaneous decays of electrons and protons? DBL: I doubt if these estimates have any real meaning. 26. KVK: The process of the transition of a quasar from our timespace region to the spacetime region of the cosmic sector looks to me analogous to the process of the transition of the solid state (of matter) from the time region to the gaseous state of the timespace region. It is stated that the overcoming of cohesion in one dimension results in the liquid state and the vanishing of cohesion in three dimensions results in the gaseous state. While this is true, there is also an intermediate case of the vanishing of cohesion in two dimensions. My suggestion is that this constitutes the vapor state. The liquid state ends with the overcoming of cohesion in two dimensions. Let us take a look at the analogy I was mentioning. Please refer to the Fig. 4, p.68, QP. For the ‗scalar inversion‘ (by which I mean the transition from the timespace region to the spacetime region) to happen, what is necessary is not unit speed in all the three dimensions (Fig.4c), but only unit speed in each of the two inactive dimensions. Since the conversion of unit speed to zero speed in time in the inactive dimensions (Fig.4d), is a normal, downhill process in the cosmic sector, this addition of unit speed in the two inactive dimensions is sufficient to bring the situation of Fig.4a eventually to that of Fig.4d, and execute the complete scalar inversion. (Of course, the subluminal speed represented by T in Fig.4d, in the active dimension results in a distortion in the stationary threedimensional temporal reference frame of the cosmic sector, showing up as motion in ‗equivalent time‘). Now the point I want to make is that, in exactly the same way, in our analogy, what ends the liquid state is the emancipation from cohesion in two dimensions only, and not in three. Availability of additional thermal energy, however, converts the vapor to gas by overcoming cohesion in the third dimension too. Further—please see bottom para, p.75, QP: here I am inclined to consider the structure of a cluster or galaxy of stars to be more analogous to that of a solid at high temperature, rather than a liquid as you suggest. The suggestion is perhaps based on the apparent fluid nature of the structure. But, insofar as the stars occupy equilibrium positions (under inward gravity and outward progresion) they are analogous to the solid molecules which too occupy equilibrium positions (under outward gravity and inward progression), The apparent fluidity in the galactic instance is due to the different nature of the equilibrium. Now my sketch below indicates the step by step analogy between the two processes I was mentioning—one involving transition from the time region to the timespace region, and the other from the timespace region to the spacetime region. The numbers in the blocks indicate the number of dimensions of motion pertaining to that particular region in which it is shown. The ‗material rays‘shown in the csector are the analogs of the cosmic rays of our sector.
D. B.L.: The idea of the vapor state having cohesion in only one dimension is an attractive one, and I gave it considerable attention 30 or 40 years ago when I was working on liquid and gas properties, I ran into quite a few problems in developing the idea, mainly because of the coexistence of the liquid and vapor states over such a wide range of temperatures, and I never reached any firm conclusions. I discontinued work in this area about 1960 when I decided to reduce my research activities and spend more time on writing about what I had already found out. Your ideas as to the transition from the material to the cosmic sector are on the right track, although the situation as I find it is more complicated. You may be interested in comparing your diagram with the following one, taken from the manuscript of what will probably be my next book:
27. 27. K,V.K.: Why can‘t there be electrical charged neutrons and massless neutrons, M+ ½½(1) , M½½(1) and M+ ½½0? DBL: I presume it is because the charge, being a rotational vibration—half of full rotation—must modify a full rotational unit, but it cannot extend over two dimensions, as a twodimensional unit can, and in the cases that you mention there is no full unit for it to modify. 28. KVK: It is still not clear what the origin of the secondary mass is: what is meant by ‗the initial level‘ and ‗its motion in the time region‘ (NBM, p.161)? DBL: The primary mass is a measure of motion that is defined as a relation of units of space to units of time. But since the equilibrium positions of the atoms of ordinary matter are inside unit space, some additional effects of their motions take place within the space units, and a portion of these internal effects is transmitted to the external region. These are relations of units of equivalent space to units of time. It seemed to me that the easiest way to grasp what is happening here would be to regard it as analogous to firing a gun from a moving vehicle. In order to arrive at the speed of the projectile, we have to take into account the initial level
of speed, the speed of the vehicle, as well as the speed imparted by the explosive charge. 29. KVK: In view of the discrete unit postulate, the gravitational speed cannot be greater than 2 inward units. Now suppose there is an atom with Z = 50: does its atomic weight 100 give rise to 100 units of inward speed, that is, gravity? If not, how does the magnitude of the inward translational effect (gravity) of an element with Z = 50 differ from that of an atom with, say, Z = 30? How to account for this gravitational speed greater than 2 net units? . DBL: the total gravitational speed of each mass unit is always two units (one net inward unit). The effect of aggregation of the mass units is to increase the distribution of this total speed toward the location of the aggregate. 30. K,V,K,: The entire heart of the quasar theory was explained in just one paragraph (QP, p. 98, top para). The total separation between zero speed in space and zero speed in (3dimensional) time is taken to be 8 units. But in your diagram A (Reciprocity, VIII (4), p. 25) you show only a total of 6 units. DBL: For this purpose you naed to distinguish between the dimensions of space (or time) and the dimensions of motion (what I have called scalar dimensions). As I pointed out in the manuscript of The Neglected Facts of Science (Chapter 2), only one dimension of motion can be represented m the conventional spatial reference system. The magnitude of this one dimension of motion is resolved into three submagnitudes by the introduction of directions in space. Thus a onedimensional scalar motion is threedimensional in space. From zero speed to zero energy in one scalar dimension is two equivalent units of speed (or energy). The total number of units from the absolute zero of speed to the absolute zero energy (three scalar dimensions) as thus six units. But each twounit component of this total (each dimension) is subject to resolution into three dimensions of space. This means that there are eight equivalent onedimensional spatial units when the one scalar dimension of motion is distributed threedimensionally. Only one of these can be represented in the spatial reference system, but the magnitudes of the motion in time (equivalent space) can be deteated by the Doppler shifts. However, all relations in which the spatial equivalent of time is substituted for actual space are twodimensional (see NBM, page 155). Consequently, the seven remaining equivalent space units are divided (usually equally) beween the dimension that is coincident with the dimension of the reference system and the dimension in which the Doppler shift is unobservable. 31. KVK: Moreover, is this 8unit separation in terms of speed units or in terms of speed displacement units? (since, if the displacement is n, the speed is 1/n+1 or n+1/1). DBL: In these instances we are dealing with speed units. Displacement applies
only to those phenomena, in which the effective quantities are the increments above unity. 32. KVK: See: ―.. the seven units are therefore divided equally between the two spatial dimensions that are now active.― (p.98, top para, QP). What is meant by ‗active‘ here? Are you referring to the two spatial directions (p. 97, second para, QP ) in which there can‗t be a translational movement since translation is already taking place in one direction of the 3dimensional space due to the recession. To be specific, let us imagine the xyz Cartesian system to locate the quasar. If translation due to the recession happens to be in the zdirection, the object cannot have a spatial speed in the x and y directions. If this is so, your words quoted above seem to mean to me that the 7unit equivalent of the 1unit quasar motion in time is divided between the x and y directions of space. Is this what you wanted to convey? But in the next sentence you say ―The component of the explosion speed in the recession dimension is thus 3·50‖. Here your words seem to mean that this 3·5 units show up in the zdirection of space, in which the recession speed is manifesting in the coordinate system. Further, a few lines below you mention, ―...only one dimension of the explosion speed is coincident with the normal recession...‖ Does not the explosion speed belong to a second scalar dimension, altogether different from the dimension in which the recession is taking place? How does one dimension of the explosion speed coincide with the recession? If the explosion speed is a twodimensional scalar motion, why can‘t both these scalar dimensions be other than the dimension of recession, in which case no dimension of the explosion speed coincides with the normal recession. That is, suppose a, b, c are the magnitudes of the scalar motions in the three scalar dimensions and let a represent the recession. If, then b and c pertain to the explosion motion, none of the dimensions of the explosion motion coincides with the recession dimension. How then the squareroot of zr arises is not clear. DBL: The recession takes place in all three scalar dimensions. It follows that one of these three dimensions is coincident with one of the two dimensions of motion in equivalent space. The total magnitude of the motion in this effective dimension is the sum of the recession, z and the effective portion of the motion in equivalent space, 3 · 5 z½. You should not try to visualize these motions in terms of the spatial reference system (the xyz Cartesian system to which you refer), because neither the low speed motion in the second and third scalar dimenaions, nor any of the high speed (above unity) motions can be represented in that system. In dealing with these motions we have to deal entirely with magnitudes. When we talk about dimensions in connection with them, it is only in the mathematical sense, in which an ndimensional quantity is one that requires n scalar magnitudes to define it. These dimensions are not the dimensions of the spatial reference system. Since the quantities with which we are dealing are the same in all cases—that is, units of motion—any one magnitude outside the reference system can be added to the magnitude represented in that system. We can then say that the dimension of such a magnitude is coincident with (or parallel to) the dimension of the motion in the
reference system, meaning merely that the quantities are additive. No more than one magnitude (dimension) of such outside motion can be coincident in this manner. 33. KVK: In the calculation of the interregional ratio, how does the factor 8 in 4x4x8 = 128 arise? If we take that the possible number of orientations of the electric displacement as only 8, how to accomodate the greater than 8 displacements in the electric dimension of atoms like 339 or 4412 etc.? DBL: The value 12 in 4412 is not a displacement; it is a specific rotation. See page 11, Basic Properties of Matter. 34. KVK: See Reciprocity, VIII (4), p.25: in diagram A we have, as I have already remarked, 6 displacement units only—not the 8 units between the positive and negative zero points. The natural datum is shown 3 displacement units away from the zero datum. Does ‗zero datum‘ mean the stationary reference frame? See p.26, top line: ―...no effective motion in two of the three dimensions ..‖ Do you mean the dimensions of motion or the dimensions of 3dimensional space? In the next line you mention that gravitational motion ―is an inward motion at unit speed: the kind of a unit in which line (1) of diagram A is expressed.‖ But line ( l ) is expressed in speed displacement units. So by the words ―gravity is inward motion at unit speed displacement‖ we find the gravitational speed as 1/(1+1)=½ and not 1. (Moreover, is the gravitational speed of a unit with atomic No. Z equal to 2Z speed displacement units?) DBL: The comments in Vol. VIII, No. 4, of Reciprocity were a report of reflections on an extemporaneous discussion at the Salt Lake conference of some points that had not been given any extended consideration previously. The conclusions expressed therein were necessarily tentative. More mature consideration indicates that they are not complete, and not as well expressed as they could be. You will find a much better discussion of the subject in Chapter 6, NFS. Diagram C in this chapter replaces Diagram A in the Reciprocity article, and Diagram D shows the general relations of the various speed ranges. 35. KVK: See NBM, p.100, lines 46: Independent motion at speed 1/n involves a change of position in 3dimensional time amounting to 1/n units. Now see the third para, same page. The forward motion of a photon with unit speed is not an independent motion. Only its motion in the dimension of oscillation is an independent motion. As such, how is it that its forward motion (which is fictitious, being only the result of viewing it from our stationary reference system) involves coordinate time, which is utized to explain the phenomenon of the constancy of the speed of light? DBL: I am not sure that I understand your point here, but I think that it has to do with my use of the term ―independent‖, so let me say two things: (1) I am calling any motion other than the outward progression of the natural reference system
independent, and (2) the only way in which an independent motion can originate is by means of reversals of scalar direction. Such an oscillating motion is ―independent‖ in my terminology, even though it has components that coincide with the normal outward progression. 36. KVK: When you talk of the possibility of the net speed being 1  (1/n) , where n is the number of energy units, do you mean that they are natural units of energy? Why is it that energy is taken as space displacement? What is the significance of the minus sign in line (2) of diagram A (Reciprocity, op. cit.)? From line (4) we see that energy magnitudes greater than 4/1 are not possible. What does this mean? What is the equivalent, in ergs, of this 4/1 units of energy? DBL: (a) Yes. See page 118, NFS. ( b) Because it is inverse speed; that is, n units of space per unit of time, whereas speed, which we define in terms of the region below the speed of light (unity), is one unit of space per n units of time. (c) When we express the deviation from unity in units, we have to distinguish between the direct units and the inverse units in some way. This is one of the ways in which it can be done. (d) I did not mean to imply that it is possible to attain 4 units of energy, I was merely showing the equivalents. Further study, the results of which are described in Chapter 6, NFS indicates that neither speed nor energy can exceed 2 net units. (e) I have not considered this question at length. Just offhand, I would say that what we are dealing with is one natural unit of energy; that is, unit mass times the square of unit speed, or 1.49 x 10³ ergs. 37. KVK: Suppose in some case the spatial speed is v cm/sec. (less than light speed, c). What is its corresponding unit in terms of speed displacement? Since v/c = 1/(n+1); n, the number of displacement units = (c/v)1? And from lines (3) and (4) of diagram A, is a speed v/c equivalent to an energy c/v? DBL: We can use any appropriate system of measurement, but it is helpful to adapt the system to the particular situation with which we are dealing. In the case of the atomic rotational combinations, it is advantageous to deal with displacements from the natural datum, unity, so that we can express positive and negative magnitudes in commensurate units, and there is no conventional usage that stands in the way of doing this. In dealing with translational motion, on the other hand, we want to examine the effect of successive additions of speed units beginning at zero speed. Measuring from zero in this case is not only convenient for our purpose, but also conforms with the conventional usage. This is why I have substituted Diagram C, NFS, for Diagram A in the Reciprocity article. I would recommend that you pay no attention to displacement (measurement from unity) in dealing with translational motion, and express everything in terms of speed (measured from zero speed), or energy (measured from zero energy). 38. KVK: What is the distinction and relation between (a) the positive zero and the negative zero (NBM, p.153, para 3) on the one hand, and (b) the zero level of the stationary spatial reference system (QP, p,58, line 6) and the zero motion in time
(QP, p.68, line, 10) on the other? Also compare QP, p.97, bottom para and NBM, p.154, top para. These expositions in connection with the possiblity of 8 units, give the impression as though ―positive zero‖ means the same thing as ―zero speed in space‖. But I understand that ―positive zero‖ is the speed 1/ l, whereas ―zero speed in space‖ is 0/1. Further, ―negative zero‖ is .. .. 1/1 or 1/(1), and ―zero speed in time‖ is 1/0. DBL: The positive zero (NBM 153), the zero level of the spatial reference system (QP 58), and zero motion in space are synonymous. Likewmise the negative zero, and zero motion in time (QP 68) are synonymous. The latter would be the zero level of a thredimensional temporal reference system. As I explain on page 119, NBM, I measure speed displacement (usually abbreviated as ―displacement‖) from unity as a datum level. But I measure speed from the mathematical zero in the usual manner. Just how many units there are between the positive (spatial) zero and negative (temporal) zero depends on the dimensional situation. If we are dealing with the full three scalar dimensions, there are six units between the absolute zero of space and the absolute zero of time. If we are dealing with only one scalar dimension, there are two linear units between the two zeros. But we can resolve this one scalar dimension into three dimensions of space, and then there are eight units (of a different kind) between the two zero points. 39. KVK: I could follow that speeds in the range 1x pertain to the 3dimensional space region, and the speeds in the range 2x belong to the spacetime region (the 3dimensional temporal reference frame because of the second unit status. How is it that the speeds of the range 3x belong back to the timespace region of the 3dimensional spatial reference frame? DBL: What you need here is an understanding of the circumstances under which time acts as ―equivalent space‖. The second unit of motion, from one unit of speed to two units, is motion in time, as indicated in Diagram B, NFS. But since there are six units between the absolute spatial zero and the absolute temporal zero, a twounit speed is still spatial as a whole. It follows that the motion in time in the second dimension has to act as a modifier of the spatial motion rather than as an actual motion in time. This is the same kind of a situation that we encounter in the atomic rotations. The negative electric rotation of certain atoms is a motion in time (speed n/1), but it does not convert the material atom to a cosmic atom, because the atomic rotation as a whole is still positive. The effect of the motion in time is therefore to modify the motion in space to the extent of its spatial equivalent. The motion in the time region, below unit space, is similar. It is a motion in the spatial equivalent of time, rather than in actual time. The motion therefore remains within the spatial reference system, rather than moving away from it and becoming unobservable, as a motion in actual time would do. Addition of a third translational unit of speed does not revert back to the same
status as the first unit. The motion in equivalent space continues in the dimension shown in Diagram B, but a motion in actual space is added in a second scalar dimension. 40. KVK: What happens to the inverse thermal motion of a cosmic atom during ‗scalar inversion‘ (that is, entry from the cosmic sector into the material sector). Since thermal motion in our sector is a linear vibratory space displacement, the inverse thermal motion of the sector should be a linear vibratory time displacement. As such, how does this linear vibratory time displacement dissipate or show up in our environment? DBL: Radiation frequency is a speed; that is, cycles per second 1/t, is actualy units of space per second, s/t.The effective unit of wavelength is about 10³cm. Radiation at shorter wavelengths is motion at speeds above unity (displacement in space). This includes the near infrared, the optical region, and the ultraviolet— that is, the bulk of the thermal radiation—as well as xrays and gamma rays. The inverse thermal radiation occupies a similar range on the long wavelength side of 10³ cm: the far infrared and the radio range. These are speeds below unity (displacement in time). Astronomical radio emitters are usually also strong sources of infrared radiation (inverse thermal). 41. KVK: The frequency of the H.F. radiation is greater than one, say, n/1. This means that there are n space units associated with 1 time unit. This means that it is the time component that is alternating between inward and outward directions. Now if it is the space unit that is so alternating (as in the L.F. radiation), this appears as an oscillation in space from the point of view of the stationary 3dimensional reference frame. But if the alternating unit is time unit, how do we (from the stationary reference frame) see it, still as a vibration in space, or as a vibration in time? Please note that I am not asking about the forward movement of the photon in the perpendicular dimension at all. I am asking about the motion in the dimension of oscillation. DBL: In all cases we see one space unit in the reference system, and we have to measure the time on a clock, There is no way in which we can distinguish observationally between a spacetime ratio of 1/n and one of n/l. If we want to know the frequency corresponding to unit speed, we have to calculate it. 42. KVK: Have the following been worked out in the context of the RS: (a) The relative cosmic abundances of the elements; (b) nuclear isomerism—origin and explanation; (c) radiation emitted due to the electron spin changing direction, for example, the 21 cm. radiation from hydrogen. How does ‗spin‘ fit in our theory? (d) explanation of the origin and the characteristics of the cosmic background radiation (NBM, p,175). DBL: (a) This has not been studied, so far as I know. (b) I do not know of any studies made on these items either, (c) The electron does ―spin‖; that is, it rotates,
but I doubt if the accepted explanation of the origin of the radiation is correct. (d) This is undoubtedly the radiation from the cosmic sector. We have the explanation for the origin and for the principal characteristic—the isotropy and the intensity (which we can explain approximately). I do not believe that it is worth while trying to go any farther at this stage of the theoretical development. 43. KVK: Gravitation is a rotationally distributed motion, its direction being redetermined after the end of each (natural) unit of time, since it is inward. In the long run, this results in its being distributed in all directions of 3dimensional space, by probability. But suppose there is the intervention of an external element, which introduces a preferred direction—such as by rapid spinning—does the gravitational motion get directed in the direction of the spin axis in space more often than in the other directions, producing in the long run, ‗directed gravity‘? Does the spinning of an object produce space displacement? DBL: According to my findings, gravitation is a continous, uniform, rotationally distributed scalar motion at unit net inward speed, and cannot be anything different. An external force cannot change the inherent characteristics of this motion. It simply imparts a vectorial motion to the gravitational combination of motions. 44. KVK: What is the difference between the inner and the outer gravitational limits (QP, p.166)? At the outer gravitational limit, the gravitational motion due to the entire mass aggregate becomes unity and beyond it becomes zero as fractional units do not exist. But what happens at the inner gravitational limit, where the inward motion due to gravity equals the outward motion of the progression? Here too, since the outward motion due to the pregression is unity, is not the inward motion due to the gravitation also one unit, if both these are to be equal? DBL: At the gravitational limit the inward motion of an agregate of m units of mass is m units. The outward motion is likewise m units, and the net speed is zero. Beyond this limit the gravitational motion decreases with the distance, and has the value mx. When mx = 1, any further increase in the distance drops the gravitational motion to zero, as there are no fractional units. As can be seen from the foregoing, the outward motion at speeds less than unity, such as the galactic recession, is purely a phenomenon of aggregates. In the case of a single isolated unit of mass, the gravitational motion would drop to zero at the gravitational limit; that is, the two limits would coincide. 45. KVK: If gravitational effect decreases as 1/d², how does one obtain the linear relation of Hubble‗s distance vs. speed? DBL: The inverse square relation applies where the distribution is threedimensional. Beyond the gravitational limit (unit gravitational speed) the distribution is twodimensional.
46.
LIFETIMES OF CATOM DECAYS
47. The phenomenon of the entry of cmatter into the material sector or the analogous entry of matter into the cosmic sector, involving the passage from spacetime domain to timespace domain, may be called ―scalar inversion‖ to emphasize the nature of the alteration of the reference frame. Scalar inversion involves two things: firstly, a transformation of motion in time (or space) to motion in space (or time), through the unit speed boundary, in all the three dimensions. Secondly, the emergence of a catom, for example, into the material sector can take place only from inside a single unit, since the three dimensions of time have nothing in common with the three dimensions of space—both having not more than a point contact, as it were (p. 154, Nothing But Motion—hereinafter NBM). 48. Therefore, in following up the calculation of various quantities across the boundary in scalar inversion, from the cosmic sector to the material sector, for example, consideration must be given to: (i) the loss of dimensional ―information‖ during the alteration of the viewpoint from the temporal reference frame to the spatial reference frame and (ii) the space equivalent of time occurring within a single unit. 49. As a result of the first point above, it is known that the full influence of spatial (or temporal) effects does not get transmitted across the boundary except when it involves only one dimension. On the other hand, only a fraction 1/c in the case of twodimensional effects, and a fraction 1/c² in the case of threedimensional effects gets transmitted. (See p. 185, New Light on Space and Time—hereinafter NLST). I will refer to this as criterion No. II in the sequel. 50. Regarding the second point above, namely, concerning the relation between quanttties within the outside single unit, ―...The time region speed, and all quantities derived therefrom, which means all of the physical phenomena of the inside region...are . . second power expressions of the corresponding quantities of the outside region.‖ (p. 155, NBM) I will refer to this as criterion No. IV. In order to find the lifetimes of the cosmic atoms in the material environment it is necessary to apply both the above criteria. 51. The first step in deriving the lifetimes is to recognize that, in view of the scalar inversion, the spatiat extension of the catom, being the analog of the lifetime in material sector, bears a relationship to the latter. As such we start with the consideration of the spatial extension of the incoming catom. Now, scalar inversion is not possible with anything more than one unit in each dimension. Depending on the number of dimensions of the motion eventually acquired during the inversion process, the amount of space involve~ in the one, two and threedimensional cases is respectively s, s² and s³ (where s is the unit space expressed in the c.g.s. system). Let us refer to this as criterion No. I. 52. The remaining criterion, No. III, necessary for our calcula tion is the recognition of the fact that the temporal equivalent of a spatial extension s across the
inversion boundary is s/c (where c, the unit speed, is expressed in the c.g.s. system). The result of apptying the above four criteria to the one, two and threedimensional situations is given in the following table. Number of Dimensions Criterion No. 1 i ii iii iv Result in secs. s s/c (s/c) (s/c)½ 1.233148 × 108 2 s² s²/c (s²/c)(1/c) [(s²/c)(1/c)]½ 1.520655 ×1016 3 s³ s³/c (s³/c)(1/c²) [(s³/c)(1/c²)]½ 1.875193 × 1024
53. The same result could have been obtained more simply though showing less details of the underlying process by directly noting that the clocktime involved in the one, two and threedimensional cases of the decay is t, t² and t³ respectively (where t0 is the unit time expressed in the c.g.s. system). The measured values of the lifetimes could then be obtained by applying the criterion No. IV, as t½, (t²)½ and (t³)½ respectively. 54. Further, in the calculations above if the extension space involved is taken as p/4s² and p/6s³ respectively in the two and threedimensional cases, based on symmetrical probability, instead of s² and s³ , we have the computed values of the lifetimes in the respective situations as 1.348 × 1016 and 1.357 × 1024 secs. 55. The acquisition of gravitational charges by the incoming catoms has an effect on the above lifetimes which can be evaluated in the following manner. In view of the scalar inversion, it must be noted that the gravitational charge of the material sector, being a twodimensional rotational vibratory time displacement, is foreign to the spacetime character of the basic rotational displacement of the catom. In the analogous case of a material atom, for example, a gravitational charge of the cosmic sector is tantamount to a magnetic charge in the material environment. Consequently the calculation of the influence of a rotational vibration of spacetime direction opposite to that of the basic rotation, on various quantities requires the consideration of the appropriate interregional ratio. 56. For exampte, ―...the motion that costitutes the charge is on the far side of another regional boundary—another unit level—and is subject to ... interregional transmission factors.‖ (p. 163, NBM). Further, ―... interregional ratio ... accounts for the small ‗size‘ of atoms. According to the theory ..., there can be no physical distance less than one natural unit ... but ... the measured interatomic distance is reduced by the interregional ratio, and this measured value is therefore in the neighborhood of 108 cm‖ (p. 1545, NBM). In exactly the same manner, the
acquisition of a gravitational charge by the catom, in view of the interregional ratio, has the effect of shortening the measured lifetime by a factor of 1/156.44. (While it is clear that the interregional ratio operates here, I am not certain that its vaiue is 156.44 in this case.) 57. An atom is a double rotating system. The rotational vibration that is a gravitational charge establishes a coupling with one of these two rotational systems. In the case of an acquisition af one more gravitational charge, the second rotational vibratory displacement acquired acts on the second rotational system of the catom rather than adding to the previous system already modified by the first gravitational charge. As such, the computation of the lifetime in this case involves the application of the interregional ratio once more. Thus the measured lifetime in the case of two gravitational charges acquired is shortened by a factor of 1/(156.44)² The lifetimes, with or without the gravitational charges, in the one, two and threedimensional situations are, therefore, as follows: Dimensions 1 1 2 2 3 Charges 0 1 0 2 0 Lifetime (sec.) 1.233148 ×108 0.788234 ×1010 1.520655 ×1016 0.621313 ×1020 1.875193 ×1024
LIFETIME OF CARGON, THE MUON
Larson states that the apparent lifetime of cargon is the sum of its own proper lifetime and the time required for the conversion of the ckrypton rotations to massless neutrons [1]. This conversion of the cosmic type rotation, namely (3)(3)0 of cKr to the material type rotation, M ½½0 of the massless neutron, involves two distinct steps: firstly, there is the ―scalar inversion‖ resulting in the change of scalar direction, from the standpoint of the temporal zero (the initial level of negative rotation) to that of the spatial zero (the initial level of positive rotation), converting the (3)(3)0 rotations to the 110 rotation (along with the concomitant conversion of the rotational base). Secondly, there is the ―splitting‖ phenomenon, which results in two single rotating systems of the massless neutrons, M ½½0, from the double rotating system of the above 110 rotation. Thus, the apparent lifetime of cAr comprises three components: i. ii. iii. the proper decay time of the cAr, the inversion time, and the splitting time.
The Decay Time: The proper lifetime of the cAr, d , in the material environment is the onedimensional lifetime, t1D, which has been evaluated [2] as 1.233148 * 108 sec. Thus,
d
= t1D sec.
(1)
t1D is also the unit of time that is relevant in the computation of the inversion and splitting times. The Inversion Time: It must be recalled that the two sectors of the physical universe— the material and the cosmic—are distinguished by the nature of the reference frames to which each belongs. The timespace region of our sector is reckoned from the standpoint of the stationary spatial frame of reference, while the spacetime region of the cosmic sector is reckoned from the standpoint of the stationary temporal reference frame. The onedimensional lifetime, t was evaluated from a consideration of the kinetics of the entry from the spacetime region to the timespace region. However, in the inversion of the rotational units of the cosmic type to those of the material type, there is an additional factor to be taken into consideration. This is because, while the evanescent manifestation of a decaying catom in the material sector is analogous to the temporary sojourn of an alien visitor on a tourist visa, the scalar inversion amounts to nothing less than a complete naturalization. The catom exists inside one natural unit of time, the ―space region‖ of the spacetime sector, whereas the material atom (or particle) exists inside one natural unit of space, the ―time region‖ of the timespace sector. Consequently, the inversion of the catom involves the crossing of the unit time boundary as well as the unit space boundary. But since our observations and measurements are carried out in the timespace region, outside the unit space (time region), the additional factor we need to consider is that arising out of the crossing of the unit time boundary only.
The total number of possible directions—the quantization of orientation, we may say—in the time region that the scalar effect of the rotation can take is calculated by Larson [3] to be 156.44. Therefore, in the absence of any preferential direction, the probability, p, that the scalar inversion takes place in a unit of time (i.e., t1D.) would be 1/156.44. But this number, 156.44, is specifically applicable to the time region motion only in relation to our spatial zero point of view, or the analogous case of the space region motion in relation to the temporal zero point of view. As already mentioned, the inversion of the negative rotations (3)(3)0 to the positive rotations 110 is tantamount to switching the viewpoint from the negative zero to the positive zero. Although this entails no change from the natural standpoint, it amounts to a shifting of 8 displacement units from the standpoint of our stationary reference system [4]. In view of this 8unit separation between the positive and negative zero points, the total number of positive orientations in the space region, namely 156.44 as reckoned from the negative zero standpoint, becomes 8 * 156.44, when reckoned from the positive zero standpoint. Consequently, the probability of inversion, p, becomes 1/(8 * 156.44). Over and above these, there is a numerical amplification arising out of the fact that x units measured from zero speed in time are equivalent to 8x units measured from zero speed in space. Thus, one unit of motion in time ― . . . the smallest amount that can exist, is equivalent to seven units measured from the spatial zero. . .‖[5]. Remembering that, whereas the previous factor 8 applies on the other side of the unit time boundary and therefore increases the total possibilities (i.e., reduces p), the factor 7 magnifies the motion on this side of the boundary and increases p. Thus we arrive at the value of the probability p as 7/(8 * 156.44). Since p is the probability that the inversion takes place in unit time, the mean time, required for the completion of the inversion event is 1/p. That is,
i
= 8 * (156.44/7) *t1D sec.
(2)
The Splitting Time: The splitting of the double rotating system 110 (three dimensions) into two of the twodimensional rotations M ½½0 (four dimensions in all), involves one unit of time modified by the 4/3 dimensional factor, that is, 4/3 t1D. Here it may be argued that since after the inversion from (3)(3)0 to 110 the motion has already crossed the unit speed boundary and arrived in the material sector proper, the time unit relevant is no longer the onedimensional lifetime, t1D (which is applicable during the transition only), but the natural unit of time, tnat . However, why this is not correct will be apparent in a moment. It must be realized that the 110 combination is inherently unstable from the probability considerations [6], whereas the massless neutron, M ½½0, is a stable structure. Insofar as the scalar inversion from (3)(3)0 leads to the improbable pattern 110, the splitting time, s, is negative. This is the same thing as saying, in common parlance, that a more probable condition is realized earlier than a less probable one. This clarifies the reason why t1D and not tnat is the pertinent time unit in the splitting. The time computation concerning any event after the 110 event requires consideration of t as the proper time
unit since the event 110 marks the end of the inversion. But the M ½½0 event is before the 110 event and thus the relevant time unit is still t1D. Thus,
s
= 4/3 t1D sec.
(3)
Finally, from the relations (1) (2) and (3) above, we have the apparent lifetime of cargon as =
d
+
i
+
s
= [1 + (8 * 156.44/7)  4/3] * 1.233148 * 108 = 2.2007 * 106 sec.
References
1. Larson, Dewey B., Nothing But Motion (North Pacific Publishers: Portland, OR, 1979), pp. 195196. 2. Nehru, K.V.K., Lifetimes of cAtom Decays, Reciprocity XI. 1 (1981), p. 34. 3. Larson, Nothing But Motion, p. 34. 4. Ibid., p. 153 5. Larson, Quasars and Pulsars (North Pacific Publishers, 1971), pp. 978. 6. Larson, Nothing But Motion, p. 142.
INTERNAL IONIZATION AND SECONDARY MASS
In the Reciprocal System the motion that is identified as the electric charge is a onedimensional rotational vibration (RV¹) that modifies a basic rotation (R), which is also normally onedimensional. Similarly, the motion that is identified as the magnetic charge is a twodimesional rotational vibration (RV²), modifying the basic twodimensional rotation (R²). In order to clearly bring out the principles on which the manifestation of the mass effect of the charges, called the secondary mass, is based, a comparison of the cases of the electron, the positron and the proton is drawn up in Table 1 below. We will use the following notation adopted by Larson: p  primary mass m  magnetic mass E  electric mass (3 dim.) e  electric mass (2 dim.) = (2/3)E C  mass due to normal electric charge (3 dim.) c  (2/3)C (2 dim.) and further introduce S  space displacement and T  time displacement
TABLE I. Comparison of the Electrically Charged Subatomic Particles
Particle Notation Spacetime direction of the charge T S S Mass composititon ec ec p+m+2e+C
Charged electron charged positron charged proton
M 00(1) M+ 001 M+ 11(1)
The conclusions that could be drawn from an examination of Table I, regarding the sign of the secondary mass increment, are summarized in Table II. The negative electric charge is a onedimensional RV with time displacement and the positive electric charge is a onedimensional RV with space displacement. From Table I it is clear that the mass increment due to the charge is positive if the displacement of both the onedimensional RV and the onedimensional R are of the same spacetime direction (cases (3) and (4), Table II). On the other hand, the secondary mass increment is negative if the displacement of the onedimensional RV and the onedimensional R are respectively of opposite spacetime directions (cases (1) and (2)).
TABLE II. The Onedimensional Rotational Vibration
Rotational base case (1) case (2) case (3) case (4) case (5) Nature of charge Spacetime direction RV¹ T S S T S R¹ S T S T T Algebraic sign of the secondary mass increment + + () = +
negative positive positive negative positive
 M  material base and C  cosmic base Case (5) deals with the direction of the mass contribution by an electric charge acquired by a rotation on the cosmic rotational base rather than on the normal, material rotational base. In this case too, the sign of the mass increment follows the same rule as above, but since the basic motion is on the opposite side of a regional boundary, the direction of the effect is reversed. Thus the mass increment (in the material sector) due to a positive charge acquired by a onedimensional rotational time displacement on a cosmic rotational base is positive.
Internal Ionization
Because of the everpresent environmental thermal vibrations, the subatomic as well as the intermediate particles always get electrically charged. They may remain in the uncharged condition only at low temperatures or when the effective displacement in the magnetic dimension is of the ―´  ´‖ type. This is the reason why the electrons and the protons are always found in the charged state, and the neutrinos and the massless neutrons in the electrically uncharged state. In the case of the intermediate particles, the two rotating systems take on a unit of electric charge each. But these two charges happen to be of opposite spacetime directions because the charge on one of the rotating system forces an equal and opposite charge on the second system in order to have an internal equilibrium. This phenomenon can be seen to be akin to the acquisition of a gravitational charge by an atom in order to equilibrate the magnetic charge of the neutrino captured by it, except for the difference in the number of dimensions of the charged motion. We will call this process ‗internal ionization‘ because it pertains only to the mutual equilibrium of the two rotating systems of a single particle (or atom). Normally it is to be expected that a positive and a negative charge neutralize each other. But the continual thermal pumping from the environment sustains the internal ionization.
The Intermediate Particles
We will now consider the secondary mass situations in the case of the two intermediate particles, namely the massone hydrogen and the compound neutron. Though the net charge due to the internal ionization is always zero, we will find that the mass effect of these two charges does show up in the case of the intermediate particles.
The H¹ system is usually denoted as M M 11(1) ———— ½½(1]
]
with the mass composition of p+m+3e, giving a mass of 1.00812815 [1]. As explained above, a condition of greater probability in the local environment would be that when both rotating systems acquire an electric charge. The charge on the protontype rotation can be either positive or negative as both a rotation with time displacement and a rotation with space displacement are available to act as a base for it. But the Mneutrinotype rotation can take on only a negative charge—like the Melectron—since this is solely determined by the spacetime direction of the rotational displacement in the electric dimension (the ―´´‖ effective displacement in the case of the electron, in the magnetic dimensions, being of no help to act as a base for the onedimensional RV). Thus the more probable, internally ionized state of H¹ can be designated as M+ M11(1) ———— ½½(1]
]
The magnitude of the secondary mass contributed by the positive charge on the protontype rotation is C because it is distributed over three effective dimension,while that be the neutrinotype rotation is only c, in view of the dimensional character of this rotation (namely, the ―´´‖ efective rotation). Further, it can be seen that the mass increment due to the charge on the protontype rotation is positive, as it belongs to the case (3) (Table II), whereas that due to the charge on the neutrinotype rotation is negative as it belongs to case (1). Therefore, the mass composition of the internally ionized H¹ should be p+m+3e+Cc. Adopting the values listed by Larson [2], this gives a mass value of 1.00814313, which compares more favorably with the observed value of 1.008142, than the value 1.00812815 given by Larson [1]. The second particle in the intermediate class is the compound neutron M 11(1) ———— C (½)(½)1
]
with the mass composition of p+m+3e+E, giving a mass value of 1.00899621. In this case, the charge that the cneutrinotype rotation can take on is positive since the displacement in the electric dimension—which decides the charge type, rather than the ―´´‖ displacement in the magnetic dimensions—is a space displacement. Thus the internally ionized compound neutron is to be designated M11(1) ———— + C (½)(½)1
]
Once again the mass contribution from the charge on the protontype rotation is C while that from the neutrinotype rotation is c, the former being negative (belonging to case (1), Table II) and the latter positive (case (5)). Thus the mass composition becomes p+m+3e+EC+c. The calculated mass is 1.00898123. This is nearer to the observed value of 1.008982 than the value 1.00899621 given by Larson [1].
The Atoms
The ease with which electric charges are acquired by the rotational systems in the local environment, producing the internal ioinization, also clarifies an important aspect concerning the (external) ionization of the atoms. The total number of positive charge units that an atom possibly can acquire equals Z, where Z is atomic number. In the Reciprocal System the atomic number is the net total equivalent electric displacement. And the units of electric displacement in the atomic structures is defined as the equivalent of two natural onedimensional displacement units [3]. Consequently, the net displacement of an atom of atomic number Z, in terms of the natural units is 2Z. An examination of the motional structure of the subatomic particles shows that (1) the unit of electric charge that these particles can acquire is the minimum that is possible and is, therefore, the unit of onedimensional RV in general, and (ii) inasmuch as a charge is a modification of the basic rotation, the number of unit charges a rotation can take on is only one per natural unit (of rotational displacement). As such, the total number of electric charges an atom can aquire comes out to be 2Z according to the Reciprocal System, in glaring contradiction to the known facts. The reason why the fully ionized atom cannot ecquire more than Z number of charges, however, is a follows. We have seen that, in the local environment, a rotating system easily acquires a RV (i.e., an electric charge), and that in a rotational structure, if there are two rotating systems, the charges on each of them are mutually of opposite spacetime directions in order that they be in internal equilibrium. As such, each of the two rotating system of an atom acquires Z number of electric charges: one system carrying Z positive charges and the other Z negative charges. This leaves the atom itself electrically neutral. There is no net contribution to the secondary mass either, since the mass effects of these to sets of charges mutually cancel out (belonging to cases (2) and (4) (Table II) respectively. It may be noted that in the case of the intermediate particles, even though the charges effects of the positive and the negative electric charges acquired respectively by the two rotating systems likewise cancel out, the mass effects of these charges do not cancel out, as their numerical magnitudes are different, being C and c. Now it can be seen that the ionization of a neutral atom consists in supplying additional onedimensional RV space displacements, which successively cancel out the Z negative charges existing in one of its rotating systems. The net secondary mass increment due to the (external) ionization of the atom can be computed from a knowledge of the degree of ionization and the algebraic sign of the increment (Table II).
Secondary Mass Effects of Twodimensional Charges
Table III below shows the effect of the spacetime direction of twodimensional charges of the algebraic sign of the secondary mass contributed by them.
TABLE III. The Twodimensional Rotational Vibration
Rotational base M M Nature of charges magnetic gravitational Spacetime direction RV² R² S T T T Algebraic sign of the secondary mass increment +
It can be seen that the general rule is the same as in the case of the onedimensional RV: the mass increment due to the gravitational charge is positive, since the gravitational charge—which is a twodimensional RV—and the basic twodimensional rotation are both time displacements. One the other hand, the mass effect of a magnetic charge— which is a twodimensional RV with space displacement—should be negative [4]. The motion that constitutes the magnetic charge is on the far side of another regional boundary and is subject to two successive interregional transmission factors. In the case of the electric charges (which is a onedimensional RV), the mass of unit charge is the reciprocal of the product of two interregional ratios [5]. Since the magnetic charge is a twodimensional RV, the interregional ratio pertaining to the charge region becomes (156.44)² (see fig. 1b). Thus the secondary mass arising out of the magnetic charge amounts to  1/156.44² x 1/156.44 =  2.6117 x 107 =  243.19 eV The situation, however in the case of the twodimensional RV with time displacement, the gravitational charge, is altogether different. The third region, in which the motion of this charge take place, turns out to be toward ‗our side‘ of the time region rather than the farside and therefore coinsides with the region outside unit space (represented by line ‗0‘ in fig. 1c). Thus the net interregional ratio applicable to the gravitational charge is 1. Consequently the secondary mass contribution of the gravitational charge is one full unit: 931.152 MeV. 0 R Rv¹+ 0 R RV²+ 0 R

1/156.4

1/142.2


1/156.4

1/156.4²


1/156.4

a) Electric charge
(b) magnetic charge
RV²(c) gravitational charge
Fig. 1. Interregional Ratios Pertaining to the Different Regions
REFERENCES
All references are from Nothing But Motion by D. B. Larson, North Pacific Pub., Portland, Or. U.S.A., 1979 1. p. 167 2. p. 164 3. p. 128 4. p. 191 5. p. 163
THE LIFETIME OF THE NEUTRON
Theoretical findings of the Reciprocal System indicate that the neutron exists in two forms: as the massless type, M ½½0, and as the compound type, M 1  1 (1) C (½)  (½)  1
]
As matters now stand, while the massless neutron is unobserved, the compound neutron is identified as the observed neutron. Larson [1] shows how the mass of the compound neutron, calculated from the Reciprocal System, agrees with the observed value. This paper attempts to arrive at the compound neutron‘s lifetime on the basis of the same theoretical system and thus add a further element of validation to the identification of the compound neutron. The motional structure of the compound neutron is rather unusual. First, while its net total displacement is only one unit, like that of the subatomic particles, it has two rotating systems like the atoms. Secondly, it is the only structure (of those that have been identified so far) in which the two rotating systems are completely ―heteroscalar,‖ that is, while one system is built up on the material rotational base (with negative vibration and positive rotation), the second system is built up on the cosmic rotational base (with positive vibration and negative rotation). Since basically the gravitation of the cosmic type structure is inward in time, cosmic rotational units cannot exist in the material reference frame (with its outward time progression) for not more than one natural unit of time under ordinary circumstances. This, however, does not apply in the case of the cosmic neutrino type rotation that constitutes the second rotating system of the compound neutron, for its net effective threedimensional rotational displacement is zero. Nonetheless, the association of M 11(1) and C (½)(½)1 should not last for more than one natural unit of time. The reason is that the corresponding displacements of the two systems, both in the case of the basic photon vibration and in the case of a rotation in any of the dimensions, are respectively of opposite spacetime directions. Since the relation of space to time constitutes motion, the two rotating systems must dissociate after the elapsing of one natural unit of time. The situation, however, is not quite so simple: the two rotating systems belong to different spacetime regions, and the motion that is effective across the regional boundary is determined by the interregional factors arising out of the limitation on the number of directions that can be transmitted. We may recall that a material rotating unit—either an atom or a subatomic particle—exists inside one natural unit of space, i.e., the ―time region,‖ whereas a cosmic rotating unit exists in the ―space region,‖ which is inside of one natural unit of time. Now the crucial point to be recognized is that the expulsion of the cneutrino motion (from the compound neutron) takes place only if the direction of the cneutrino motion, interacting across the interregional boundary, happens to be antiparallel to the direction of the motion of the proton motion, and not otherwise. Thus the lifetime of the compound neutron is the time elapsed before the eventual occurrence of this antiparallel encounter that results in the neutron‘s decay.
Had the cosmic type rotation in the second rotating system of the compound neutron been a onedimensional motion, the encounter and resultant decay would take place within one natural unit of time. But the neutrinotype rotation, i.e., C (½)(½)1, is threedimensional, and it is known that the full influence of spatial (or temporal) effects does not get transmitted across the boundary, except when it involves only one dimension. On the other hand, only a fraction of 1/c in the case of twodimensional effects, and a fraction of 1/c² in the case of threedimensional effects gets transmitted.[2] As such, the effect of the cneutrino motion existing in the space region and interacting with the proton motion existing in the time region is reduced by a factor of 1/c². Here, we must recall that, ―. . . the nonrotating photon remains in the same absolute location permanently. . . The rotating photon, on the other hand, is continually moving from one absolute location to another as it travels back along the line of the progression of the natural reference system, and each time it enters a new absolute location the vectorial direction is redetermined by the chance process. Inasmuch as all directions are equally probable, the motion is distributed uniformly among all of them. . .[3] In the present case, although the net effective rotational displacement of the cneutrino motion is zero, its net total rotation is one negative unit, and after the elapse of each natural unit of time (n.u.t.), its direction is redetermined by chance. Therefore, inasmuch as the chances of the orientation of the cneutrino motion taking the correct direction in threedimensional time, required for an antiparallel encounter referred to earlier, are reduced by a factor of 1/c²., the probable time for this encounter to happen is increased from one n.u.t. to c² n.u.t. However, it must be noted that the number of possible orientations that the proton rotation can take in threedimensional time is not just one but is given by the interregional ratio, R [4]. As any of these orientations in the time region can deal with the incoming cneutrino motion, the chances of the antiparallel encounter are increased by the factor R. In other words, this means that the previous lifetime arrived at, c² n.u.t. is decreased to c²/R n.u.t (or c² · tnat/R seconds, where tnat is one n.u.t. as expressed in the c.g.s. units). (It can readily be seen that since c²/R represents the total number of possibilities of equal probability for the antiparallel encounter, R/c² is the probability that the neutron decays in one unit of time. Thus it can be identified with the classical decay constant). The value of R pertinent here is not the 128 (1+ 2/9) value computed in Ref.[4]. Firstly, the proton, M 11(1) is a single rotating system unlike the atoms, which are double rotating systems. As such, only one of the nine possible vibrational positions is occupied, bringing the total number of orientations to 128 (1 + 1/9). Secondly, of the two mutually opposite directions in any dimension of the basic photon vibration, only one results in an antiparallel alignment (the other resulting in a parallel alignment). Consequently, the effective vibrational contribution reduces by half. Thus the value of R applicable to the present situation is 128 (1 + 1/8) = 135.1111. Adopting the values of c and tnat from Ref.[5], we have the mean lifetime of the compound neutron as
=
(2.99793*1010)² ——————— × (1.520655 × 1016) 135.1111
= 1.01154*10³. sec. or 16.859 min. Or the same result can be expressed in terms of halflife T as T = · ln 2 = 1.01154*10³ * ln 2 = 701.145 sec. or 11.686 min. This compares very favorably with the experimental value of 11.7 ± 3 min. (American Institute of Physics, HB., pp. 8118) with a discrepancy of 0.144 percent.
References
1. Dewey B. Larson, Nothing But Motion (North Pacific Publ.: Portland, Ore., 1979), p. 167. 2. Idem, New Light on Space and Time (North Pacific Publ.: Portland, Ore., 1979), p. 185. 3. Nothing But Motion, p. 58 4. Nothing But Motion, p. 154 5. Nothing But Motion, p. 160
ADDENDUM
Besides the compound neutron and the massone hydrogen isotope belonging to the ―intermediate‖ rotating systems, there appears to be another theoretical possibility. The two rotating systems of this particle are made up of the material neutrinotype rotation and the cosmic electron rotation respectively. Thus it can be designated: M (½)  (½) (1) C 0  0 1
]
As can be seen, while the net displacement of one system is zero, there is a net positive displacement in the other system. As the net total displacement of the combination is equivalent to that of the neutron, M ½½0, this seems to be another version of the compound neutron. But due to the small mass and the extremely short lifetime of this combination, it might easily escape detection.
The potential mass of both the neutrino and the celectron is actualized when the rotations of these particles enter into combination, constituting this compound neutron. In addition, there is an initial electric unit as the two rotational bases are heteroscalar. The resulting mass is 0.00231482. Since the celectron has effective rotation in only one dimension, the mean lifetime of this compound particle, calculated on the basis of the considerations developed in the paper is: = tnat/R = 1.520655*1016/135.1111 = 1.1255*1018 sec.
RELATIVE ABUNDANCE OF THE ELEMENTS
A general physical theory, like the Reciprocal System, should satisfy two types of criteria in order to establish its truth. Firstly, it should be able to explain completely those physical phenomena that remained recalcitrant without explanation in the previous theories. More desirably, it should lead to predict ions which are definitely in conflict with those of the preceding theories but c an be validated by observation or experimentation. The second type of requirement to be satisfied by the general theory is that it is not inconsistent with any of the definitely established physical facts. This may be called the negative criterion, whereas the previous one may be called the positive criterion. It can be seen that the positive criterion, being more powerful in establishing the new theory, demands greater attention (and challenge) from the point of view of its proponents. The negative criterion, on the other hand, is a rather weak condition for positively establishing the new theory. Further, in view of the extremely vast number of genuine physical facts that were recognized, it is neither possible nor worthwhile to bestow more than a limited amount of consideration—especially in the early stages of the development of the new theory—to showing that the theory is not inconsistent with any of these facts. However, the negative criterion, though a weak one in establishing the new theory, is allpowerful in invalidating it if a single instance of inconsistency is found. For this reason the adherents of the conventional theory not infrequently, tend to invoke the negative criterion, having already armed themselves with some sort of explanations for some of these facts. They often ask how the new theory accounts for some of such recognized facts. In such instances—especially when information of a quantitative nature is involved—it is incumbent on the proponents of the new theory to pay more consideration and work out the details to demonstrate that the negative criterion is well satisfied. I wish to bring to your attention two such questions which lectures on the astronomical aspects of the Reciprocal System invariably seem to elicit. The first one of these is about the genesis of the elements and their relative cosmic abundance. The second concerns the background microwave radiation and the value of its temperature. These, therefore, seem to warrant greater consideration in working out the details in the context of the Reciprocal System. The detailed study of the cosmic abundance problem is also important from the point of view of stellar evolution and energy generation processes. In the following I attempt a cursory analysis of the cosmic abundance problem giving nothing more than a general outline of the argument. According to the Reciprocal System (i) the element building process starts with the formation of hydrogen from the decay products of cosmic matter—namely , the massless neutrons and their equivalents—ejected into the material sector; 1 (ii) the assembling of the elements with higher atomic numbers then continues by the successive additions of the positive rotational displacement units (PDU).² Let:
Nd = the total number of PDU in the material sector of the universe , locked up in the material atoms Nt = the total number of atoms in the material sector Ne = the number of rotational displacement units ejected into the cosmic sector from the material sector = the number of rotational displacement units ejected into the material sector from the cosmic sector (under steady state conditions) Nn = the number of free PDU in the material universe involved in transmuting the elements Nz = the number of atoms of the element with atomic number Z az = the relative cosmic abundance of the element Z = Nz/Nt We will consider the element with atomic number Z. We find that its population, Nz, is being increased by the atoms that get transmuted to element Z from lower Z values. At the same time Nz is being decreased by those atoms that get transmuted to atomic numbers higher than Z. In addition, some atoms of element Z are lost through Type II explosions. Since the universe as a whole is under steady state, the number Nz can be taken as constant. This means that the inflow must be equal to the outflow.
Total PDU
The total number of the positive rotational displacement units contained in a ll the atoms in the material sector is given by ND=S zZ*Nz=NT S Z*AZ (1)
Transmutation, Outgoing
Oz, the number of atoms of element Z that are outgoing by getting transmuted to element(s) of higher atomic number by combining with the free PDU can be arrived at as follows: Let Dz be the number of PDU captured by the atoms of element Z, out of Nn, the total number of PDU available for transmutation. Then, the ratio Dz/Nn must be equal to the ratio of the PDU locked up in all the atoms of element Z to the total number of PDU in the material sector. That is, Dz/Nn = Z*nz/ nd,orDz = Z(Nt*az) Nn/nd (2)
Now, the major portion of the outgoing atoms from element Z end up as atoms o f element Z+2. This involves the capture of a single PDU by each atom. Let this number of atoms be 2Oz. In addition, it is also probable that a small fraction of the atoms capture simultaneously two PDU, resulting in trans mutation to element Z+2. Let this number be 2Oz. Thus Oz is made up of two parts, 1Oz and 2Oz, such that
1
Oz = k*Oz and 2Oz = (1k)*Oz
(3)
where k is a distribution fraction. Of the number of Dz, we take that the number of PDU involved in the single capture event is 1Dz and the number involved in the double capture event is 2Dz. Then 1Dz = 1Oz, whereas 2Dz = 2* 2Oz. Usin g eq. (3) we have Dz = 1Dz + 2Dz = 1Oz + 2*2Oz = [k+2(1k)]Oz = (2k)*Oz Substituting for Dz from eq. (2), Oz = [Nt*Nn/Nd(2k)]*Z*az (4)
Transmutation, Incoming
From what has been said above, it can be seen that the number of atoms, I, coming in by getting transmuted to element Z from elements of lower atomic number comprises two separate streams: Iz1, the number that is coming in from element Z1 due to single capture, and Iz2, the number coming in from element Z2 due to double capture (see fig. 2). From eq. (3) we note that ******************************************************
Iz2 = 2Oz2 = (1k)*Oz2 and Iz1 = 1Oz1 = k*Oz1 Thus, the total number of incoming atoms adding to the population of element Z i s, (substituting Z+2 and Z+1 respectively, for Z in eq. (4)) I = Iz2 + Iz1 =[Nt*Nn/Nd(2k)]*[(1k)(Z2)az2 + k(Z1)az1] (5)
Ejection
We will assume that the relative abundance in the matter that is ejected to the csector by the Type II explosions is the same as that in the material sector of the universe in general. If Ez is the number of atoms of element Z that are ejected, we have the total number of PDU that are leaving the material sector by way of ejection as Ne = Sz Z*Ez (6)
If the matter is uniformly distributed, we have Ez proportional to N z; that is, Ez = g*Nz, where g is a fraction less than 1.0. Then.
Ez = g*Nt*az Therefore, from eq. (6) above, Ne = SZ*(g*Nt*az) = g*NtSZ*az Hence, from eq. (1), Ne = g*Nd, or g = Ne/Nd. Finally, from eq. (7), Ez = (Nt*Ne/Nd)az = [Nt*Nn/Nd(2k)] [Ne(2k)/Nn]*az
(7)
(8)
Equilibrium
By steady state we mean, in the material sector, uniformity with respect to time. Under steady state conditions, therefore, the relative abundance does not vary. That is, Nz, the number of atoms of the element Z is constant. That is, Nz, the number of atoms of the element Z, is constant. In othe r words, I = Oz + Ez (see fig. 2). Thus, from eqs. (4), (5) and (8), [Nt*Nn/Nd(2k)][(1k)(Z2)az2 + k(Z1)az1] = [Nt*Nn/Nd(2k)][Z*az + (Ne(2k) /Nn)az] Or az =(1k)(Z2)az2 + k(Z1)az1 ———————————— Z+ where s = Ne(2k)/Nn (9)
(10)
Hydrogen
Since with Z = 1, hydrogen is the first element, the case of inflow from elements of lower atomic number does not arise. On the other hand, the displacement units ejected from the csector form the incoming flow. Since, of the Ne displacement units entering the material sector, Nn PDU are u sed up for the purpose of transmutation, the number of PDU that eventually trans form to hydrogen atoms is Ne  Nn. Therefore, from eqs. (4) and (8), balancing the inflow and the outflow, NeNn = [Nt*Nn/Nd(2k)][1*a1 + (Ne(2k)/Nn)a1] Or, NeNn Nd ——— (2k) —— = (1 + )a1
Nn
Nt
Substituting from eqs. (1) and (10),  (2k) a1 = +1 Since az is a function of a1, a1 cancels out from both s ides of the equation (11). The equation, therefore, serves as the compatibility criterion between values of s and k. Further, since Nt = SNz, Saz = 1 (12) ———— Z*az (11)
Eq. 12 is the normalizing condition which fixes the value of a1, and hence of all az, for given values of s and k.
Comparison with Empirical Data
The values of the two parameters s and k in the above equations are to be arrived at by logical processes from the postulates of the Reciprocal System. This still remains to be done. Meanwhile, a good agreement with the empirical values of the relative cosmic abundances³ can be demonstrated by appropriate choice of s and k. The theoretical curve is plotted in Fig. 1, with s = 9.5 and k = 0. 9. ************************************************* It must be noted that, in the figure, the abundance values are plotted on a logarithmic scale and hence the discrepancy between the theoretical and the observational values wherever it occurs should not be underestimated. However, it is clear that, as far as it goes, the trend of the theoretical curve conforms well to the actual. Further refinement is in order in considering the possibility of transmutation by triple or multiple capture of PDU, which have a nonzero probability at t he higher Z values. In fact, the comparatively higher abundance of the EvenZ elements over those of the Odd ones can be explained on the basis of the corresponding distribution in the values of k for the single, double, or higher multiple capture events. Remembering that the atomic number is the net total electric displacement units, and Even Z can be seen to correspond to an Odd speed 1/(1+Z) . As Larson explains, Odd speeds (like 1/3 or 1/5) are the direct result of scalar directional reversals, whereas Even speeds (like 1/4 or 1/6) are obtained only by way of compounding two Odd speeds. As such, the probability of an Odd s peed (Even Z) is comparatively higher than that of an Even speed (Odd Z). Among the assumptions made, the first is that the relative abundance is uniform in the universe. The second one is that the magnetic ionization level is zero. This may be true only in the case of interstellar and intergalactic matter, most of which lies undetected. Consequently, the contribution of this matter t o the cosmic abundance is not reflected adequately in the observational values. The zero ionization level assumption, therefore, is likely to give rise to a large error in the predicted values, especially at the higher
atomic numbers. Evaluation based on the consideration of the atomic weight rather than the atomic number will be more appropriate to the situation as it takes care of the rotational displacement present as the gravitational charge as well. Another important factor that has not been taken into account in this primary analysis is the disintegration of matter that occurs on attaining the destructive thermal limit (as in the stellar energy generation process). Also to be considered is the effect of supernova explosions on the abundance of the Fe group of elements, and the possibility that the relative abundance in the matter ejected out of the material sector in Type II explosions is considerably different from that applicable at large.
References
1. D. B. Larson, Nothing But Motion, (Portland, Or.: North Pacific Publishers, 1979), p. 215. 2. D. B. Larson, The Structure of the Physical Universe (Portland, Or.,: North Pacific Publishers, 1959), pp. 105108. 3. American Institute of Physics Handbook, 1963.
THE INTERREGIONAL RATIO
Introduction
The interregional ratio is an important concept discovered in the development of the Reciprocal System of theory. The works of Larson, notably Nothing But Motion and The Structure of the Physical Universe are to be referred to for an explanation of the origin and significance of this ratio. This paper only attempts to clarify the factors involved in its calculation, as applied to the basic properties of matter. At the outset, I feel that the word ―orientation‖ that we have been using in this context does not seem appropriate because of its strong connotation of direction in space. The word ―possibility‖ might seem preferable, since in evaluating the interregional ratio we are inquiring as to how many possibilities are there for a motion unit to exist—the intrinsic existential possibilities, we might say. Another word that comes to mind is ―eigenstate.‖ But ―degrees of freedom‖ seems very much suitable, provided we refrain from smuggling in some of its spatial connotations. The Reciprocal System shows that there are several types of regions or domains in the structure of the physical universe and that there are interactions across the regional boundaries. During the interactions it is not always the case that the effect of a unit of motion transmitted across the boundary is also one unit. For example, if there are f number of equipossible alternatives within the region for a unit of motion, then by probability laws we know that there is 1/fth chance of the unit effect being transmitted, or what is tantamount, only 1/fth part of the unit motion gets transmitted. The number of possibilities or degrees of freedom, f, is called the Interregional Ratio.
Rotational Degrees of Freedom in Threedimensional Time (or Space):
Let us examine rotation in space in order to draw conclusions that are equally applicable to rotation in time. ―Onedimensional‖ rotation means that one magnitude (or parameter) is required to fully specify the rotation. A onedimensional rotation occupies twodimensional space. Similarly, a twodimensional rotation requires two magnitudes for its full specification and occupies threedimensional space. Now a unit of onedimensional rotation has two possible directions, +1 and 1, within the framework of threedimensional space, as shown in fig. 1.
As a result, the total number of possibilities—the degrees of freedom, as we will call them—in threedimensional space with two possibilities in each dimension is 2*2*2 = 8. Notationally we can express the eight possibilities as
(+1,+1,+1) (+1,+1,1) (+1,1,+1) (1,1,+1) (1,1,1) (1,+1,+1)
(+1,1,1) (1,+1,1)
}
(1)
In fact, if n is the number of (vector) dimensions and p the number of possibilities per dimension, then f the number of degrees of freedom available in ndimensional (vectorial) space (or time) is given by f = pn (2) As such, a unit of onedimensional rotation has eight degrees of freedom (that is, intrinsic existential possibilities) in threedimensional space (or time). The question is sometimes raised as to whether the two possibilities in each of the three dimensions do not make up a total of six rather than of eight. This would indeed be true if we were considering three onedimensional spaces instead of one threedimensional space. If the three dimensions are independent, then the total possibilities are 2 or 2 or 2 = 2 + 2 + 2 = 6 (3) In fact, this is what we have in the case of spacetime dimensions—the dimensions of scalar motion—in distinction to the dimension of space (or time)—which we have called the vector dimensions. Since the three spacetime dimensions, being scalar, are independent, the possible number of degrees of freedom is six.(1) So if n is the number of scalar dimensions and p the number of possibilities per dimension, we can write down the formula for the number of degrees of freedom available in the scalar dimensions as f = n*p (4) On the other hand, if the three dimensions are interrelated, the total number of degrees of freedom, as given by eq.(2) is 2 and 2 and 2 = 2 * 2 * 2 = 8 (5) Another question that is sometimes raised is why two possibilities per dimension and three dimensions do not imply 32 = 9 possibilities rather than 23 = 8. But it is not difficult to see that this would be the case only if we had three possibilities in each of the dimensions of a twodimensional motion, and not otherwise. As the degree of complexity of the motion increases, the existential states possible to it decrease. The twodimensional rotation, it is also remarked, requires two magnitudes to specify it fully. So the possible degrees of freedom for a twodimensional rotation in threedimensional space (or time) are 8/2 = 4. This can easily be understood with the help of the diagrams shown in fig. 2. Fig. 2 The Degeneracy of a Twodimensional Rotation The twodimensional rotation is a coupled rotation of two onedimensional rotations. This coupling causes a ―degeneracy.‖ In fig. 2(a), the directions of the two component rotations are indicated by two plus signs. The characteristic of the twodimensional rotation is that if the directions of both of the onedimensional rotations are reversed, as
in fig. 2(b), the net effect is to leave the sense of the twodimensional rotation unchanged, in view of the fact that (+1) * (1) = (1) * (1) and (+1) * (1) = (1) * (1)
}
(6)
Due to this feature, the eight possibilities listed in statement (1) above reduce to four, for the case of the twodimensional rotation, because each of the possibilities listed in the upper line of statement (1) turns out to be the same as the one listed immediately below it, in the second line. For example, for the coupled rotation (+1,+1,1) = (+1,+1,1) = (1,1,1) = (1,1,1) (7) Therefore if d is the vector dimensionality of the motion, then eq.(2) is modified to give f, the number of degrees of freedom available in vector space (or time) as f = pn/d (8) We finally arrive at the total number of degrees of freedom available for a unit of motion in the atom which comprises two twodimensional (magnetic) and one onedimensional (electric) rotations, as (23/2) * (23/2) * (23/1) = 4 * 4 * 8 = 128 (9) There is another point of relevance that needs to be mentioned at this juncture before turning attention to the inquiry of the vibrational degrees of freedom. We have already distinguished between the dimensions of spacetime (the scalar dimensions) and the dimensions of space (or time) (the vector dimensions). If we have an instance of motion existing in two or three spacetime dimensions, then motion in only one of these spacetime dimensions can be represented in either threedimensional space (or time)(2). This is depicted in fig. 3. Gravitation (atomic rotation) is three spacetime dimensional. The two spacetime dimensions which cannot be represented in threediomensional time (or space) are fully occupied by scalar motion and therefore leave no more degrees of freedom than calculated by eq. (9).
Scalar Motion in this one spacetime dimension only is represented in threedimensional time (or space)
Two twodimensional rotations in two dimensions of time One onedimensional rotation in the third dimension of time
The region of threedimensional time
These two spacetime dimensions are occupied by scalar motion; but this motion cannot be represented in threedimensional space (or time)
Fig. 3 The Limitations of Threedimensional Time
Vibrational Degrees of Freedom in Threedimensional Time:
While a onedimensional rotation has two possibilities (clockwise and counterclockwise, as shown in fig. 1), a onedimensional vibration has only one possibility, since both the directions (forward and backward) in any dimension constitute one oscillation. This is true of both onedimensional linear and rotational vibrations. In view of this, the possible number of degrees of freedom of a onedimensional vibration in threedimensional time (or space), as calculated by eq.(2), with p =1 and n=3, is f = 1³ = 1 (10) However, this number is increased by an additional factor, the freedom available in the three spacetime dimensions, only one of which is occupied by the single unit of photon vibrational motion. This leaves the remaining two spacetime dimensions vacant (unlike in the case of atomic rotation). Consequently the one unit of vibrational motion has three possible choices as far as the spacetime dimensions are concerned. Notationally we can list these possibilities as (1,0,0), (0,1,0), (0,0,1) (11) Thus the number of degrees of freedom of the onedimensional vibrational unit becomes, by eq.(3) or (4) 1³ or 1³ or 1³ = 1 + 1 + 1 = 3 (12) At this juncture we recall that that we are not so much interested in the degrees of freedom available to the onedimensional vibration on its own right, but rather in the additional degrees of freedom, if any, that this onedimensional vibration makes available to the rotational unit that is built on it. Since the atomic rotation is a timedisplacement while the basic photon vibration is is a spacedisplacement, both belong to different ―regions.‖ As a result, by applying probability laws, we see that N degrees of freedom of the spacedisplacement of the photon is equivalent to 1/N degrees of freedom from the point of view of the timedisplacement of the rotation. The three degrees of freedom calculated by eq.(12) are specifically applicable to the case of a onedimensional rotation founded on a onedimensional vibration, giving the rotational unit an additional 1/3 degree of freedom. But the rotation basic to the atomic or subatomic structure is twodimensional and not onedimensional.(3) Therefore, with p = 3 and n = 2, by eq.(2), we obtain the total vibrational degrees of freedom from the point of view of the twodimensional rotation as 32 = 9 (13) This means that for every rotational degree of freedom in threedimensional time there is an additional 1/9 degree of freedom due to the underlying vibration. However, since that the atomic structure consists of two twodimensional rotational systems—this is what distinguishes the atom from subatomic particles, the latter having only one twodimensional rotational system in its structure—the additional degree of freedom due to the vibrational contribution is 2/9 (being 1/9 for each of the rotational systems) in the
case of atoms, whereas it is only 1/9 in the case of the subatoms. The interregional ratio, which is simply the number of total degrees of freedom, is 128 + (128 * 2/9) = 156.44 in the case of the atomic rotation, and is 128 + (128 * 1/9) = 142.22 in the case of the subatomic rotation. (15) (14)
Summary
1. Scalar motion (that is, spacetime) can at maximum be threedimensional. These dimensions of scalar motion are referred to as ―scalar dimensions.― 2. The scalar dimensions are independent. If there are n number of scalar dimensions and p number of degrees of freedom per dimension, the total degrees of freedom, f, are n * p. 3. The stationary reference frame we call space is threedimensional, these being called the ―vector‖ dimensions. 4. If a multidimensional scalar motion exists, motion in only one of these multiple scalar dimensions can be represented fully in a three(vector) dimensional space or time. 5. The three vector dimensions of space (or time) are not independent but interrelated. If there are p number of possibilities per dimension, then the total number of degrees of freedom, f, in the threedimensional vector space (or time) is given by: f = p³. 6. That the maximum number of degrees of freedom in threedimensional space or time is p³ does not mean that a particular motion can have p degrees of freedom. If the number of dimensions of this motion (as against the number of dimensions of the vector space (or time) in which it exists) is d, then the available number of degrees of freedom for this motion is f = p³/d.
References
1. D. B. Larson, The Neglected Facts of Science (Portland Ore.: North Pacific Publishers, 1982), p. 84. 2. Ibid., p. 19. 3. D.B. Larson, Nothing But Motion (Portland, Ore.: North Pacific Publishers, 1979), pp. 124125.
ELECTRIC IONIZATION
1. Introduction
R. W. Satz discusses(1) the fundamental motions of the physical universe from the point of view of the Reciprocal System of theory and derives their mathematical expressions. In a subsequent paper(2) he shows how the work function, the ionization energy, and the magnetic resonance frequencies of the atoms and the subatoms can be theoretically derived from the fundamental postulates of the Reciprocal System. These two works form the starting point of the present paper. Firstly we note some printing errors that are found in Ref. 2 cited above: (i) In figs I and II, the direction of the arrow head on the outermost of the three circles should be reversed. (ii) Table I, p. 22: in the column for ―c/vmag‖ for the element B, the entry should be 3 and not 4. In the first column, in the second line from bottom, it must be Ag and not As. (iii) p. 29, 8th line from bottom: ―(R/2 )‖ must be there in piace of ―(2R/ ).‖ (Note that it is mentioned in the text, in the line above it, that the cosmic neutrino rotation takes an inverse charge.) Only then does the combined energy add up to h * (2R/ ) * (B/Bnat) as indicated. (iv) Table II, p. 32: In the column for ―Displacement,‖ for the isotope 5B(11) the entry should be 213 and not 2 23. The theory of the electric ionization and magnetization developed in Refs. 1 and 2 leaves certain unresolved difficulties: l.l The mass effect of an etectric charge. Satz evaluates the energy necessary for creating a positive electric charge as 8.68 eV (eq. 7 of Ref. 2 and p. 8 of Ref. 1). Larson, calculating the individual masses of the subatoms, concludes that the electric charge produces a mass effect amounting to 0.00004494 amu.(3) This is equivalent to nearly 41850 eV. How such a mass effect of 41850 eV is produced from an electric charge that came into being from an energy of 8.68 eV is not clear. Similarly, it can be seen that the energy associated with the unit isotopic charge is 2.17 eV since its rotational frequency is R/2 (p. 8, Ref. 1). It is once again not clear how this can compare with the mass effect of an isotopic charge, namely, 931.3 MeV. Further, I have shown(4) that , following Larson‘s line of argument, a unit magnetic charge gives rise to a negative mass effect equivalent to 243.19 eV, which also contrasts with the energy required to create a magnetic charge, namely, 2.17 eV as derived by Satz. 1.2 Under Table I (p. 23, Ref. 2), Satz mentions in a foomote: ―...where value 3 appears in K.V.K. Nehru Electriclonizarion magnetic rotation, this is the inverse of actual rotation,‖ whereas in the work(5) from which these values were taken, Larson was more careful, noting that ―...where the value 3 appears as the magnetic rotation of one of the higher group elements, this is the inverse of the actual rotation, 5.― However, what both
these authors fail to make clear is how rotation 5 is the inverse of rotation 3 , since in the magnetic dimension the two ―zero points‖ are separated by 4 units and not 8. 1.3 The photoionization theory developed by Satz(2) seems to give good results, but there are ceriain inadequate features. The first of these is the rather large discrepancy (16 to 19 %) between rhe calculated and the observed values of the ionization energy of some of the elements. See, for example, the cases of C, Zn, Cd, Hg, etc. (Table I, pp. 2223, Ref. 2). 1.4 The appropriateness of taking the magnetic speed as 3 (see Table I, p. 23, ref. 2) when the magnetic displacement is 3, in the cases of Ni, Cu, Zn, Zr, Nb and Mo or that of taking the electric speed as 5 and 6 when the electric displacement is (4) and (3) respectively in the cases of Ge and As is not explained. This lapse occurs in the cases of Hf, Ta, W, Re, Os, Ir, Pt, Au, Hg, Tl, Pb, Bi, etc. 1.5 While Table I(2) covers a good number of the elements for which the calculated values of the work function and the ionization energy are compared with the observed values, there is a considerable number of elements left out. Conspicuous among the latter are all of the inert gases. 1.6 Similarly, while it was mentioned that the electron, the positron, the proton, and H1can take an electric charge (p. 23, Ref. 2), no reason was given as to why the neutrino and the neutron do not do so. 1.7 In the case of H1 the Principle of Equivalence was invoked (p. 24, Ref. 2) to show that the ionization energy is 13.595 eV. However, no attempt was made to derive this value from the rotational speeds of H1, even though this was done in the case of the ionization energies of the free positron and proton (eq. 7, ref. 2), as well as atoms (eq. 9a, Ref. 2). 1.8 Developing the equation for the ionization energy of an atom, Satz writes: ―From mechanical considerations it is obvious that the energy necessary to create a positivenegative charge pair is twice that needed to create the negative charge on the electron‖ (p. 24, Ref. 2). Thus he takes it as 2 * 2.1 = 4.34 eV. But it can be asked, why should not this energy be taken as twice the energy needed to create the positive charge on the atom (2 * 8.68 eV), or the sum of the energies required to ;,reate the negative and the positive charges (2.17 + 8.68 eV), instead of 4.34 eV?
2. Equation for the Ionization Energy
We will now attempt a refmement of the electrical ionization theory developed by Satz(2) with a view to meet the difficulties mentioned in section 1 above. We find that the best way to get an insight into the situation is to consider the ionization energies, EI, of the atoms of the alkali metals, all of which have only one unit of rotational displacement in the electric dimension. From Ref. 6 we have the following data: Element Displacement EIin eV
Li Na K Rb Cs
211 221 321 331 431
5.392 5.139 4.341 4.177 3.894
It can be noted from the observational data that as the displacement in the magnetic dimension increases, there is a systematic decrease in the ionization energy. On the other hand, the value calculated by Satz (his Table I, Ref. 2) is the same, 4.34 eV, for all of these elements. From this it is apparent that there ought to be some missing factor that accounts for this discrepancy. This factor, whose existence has not been recognized hitherto, is what might be called the transverse effect of the rotations in the two dimensions other than the one considered in the Satz eq. 9a (p. 25, Ref. 2): EI,atom = 4.34 *(c/vmag)½ eV EI,atom = 4.34 *(c/velec1)½ eV That is to say, if u and v are the two magnetic speeds and w the electric speed, and if the ionization energy happens to be given by EI = 4.34 * (c/u)½, the speeds v and w in the orthogonal dimensions do have a transverse effect on EI. Or if EI happens to be given by EI = 4.34 * (c/w1)½, then the speeds u and v exert the transverse effect. This transverse effect can be evaluated as follows. Firstly, we note from Satz‗ eq. 9a(2) given above that the collinear effect of the atomic rotation on the electric ionization is arrived at by considering the inverse speed c/vmag or c/velec. The transverse effect is the inverse of the collinear effect, and as such, is to be arrived at by considering the specific speeds, namely, vmag/c and velec/c directly. Secondly, since speeds in two different dimensions are simultaneously involved in the transverse effect, their net effect can be calculated by talang their geometric mean.(7) Incidentally, it may be noted that the reason for the geometric mean of the specific rotations to be the relevant quantity, as Larson(7) takes, is that the force effect of a specific rotation t is given by ln t (i.e., the natural logarithm of t), and that the average force due to the two rotations t1 and t2 is ½(ln t1 + ln t2) = ln(t1* t2)½. That is, it is equivalent to the force effect of a rotation (t1* t2)½. Finally, the squareroot of the expressions is to be taken in order to convert the time region quantity into the timespace region quantity. Thus the factor responsible for the transverse effect can be written down as [(Vx/c * vy/c)½]½ = (vx * vy/c2)¼ (1) where vx/c and vy/c are the specific rotations in the other two dimensions. It is necessary to consider one more item before we can set up the fmal expression for the
ionization energy of the atom. This concerns the energy required to create a positivenegative charge pair, mentioned in section 1.8 above. This is not twice the energy needed to create the negative charge as Satz supposes (nor, of course, twice the energy needed to create the positive charge). In Ref. 1, Satz concludes that the natural frequency of electric charge is R/ Hertz (his eq. 23, ref 1) and then shows that the frequency of unit negative charge is R/2 , since the negative charge is one unit of time displacement and its speed is 1/(1 + 1) = ½. Similarly, he shows that since the unit of positive electric charge is a unit of space displacement, its speed is (1 + 1)/1 = 2, its frequency is 2R/ (also see his eqs. 4 & 7, Ref 2). Now, when a charge pair is created the relevant speed is the geometric mean (of the speeds of a positive and negative charge), that is, (½ * 2)½ = l. Hence the energy necessary to create the charge pair is twice h * 1 * R/ (where h is Planck's constant), or 8.68 eV. Therefore, the energy for the first ionization level is given by EI,atom = 8.68 *(c/vmag)½*(.vx * vy/c2)1/4eV or EI,atom = 8.68 *(c/velec1)½*(.vx * vy/c2)1/4eV (2)
3. Observational Validation
In Table I are listed the values of EI calculated from eq. 2. In column 2 of the Table the displacements in the three dimensions are given for each element, and in the third column are given the rotations causing the collinear effect, namely, either c/vmag or c/velec. In those cases where these speeds are derived from any of the alternative orientations the atomic rotation is able to assume, as will be presently discussed, they are marked by an appropriate sign. In the fourth column are listed the two specific rotations that produce the transverse effect. In column 5 are listed the calculated values and the observed values according to Ref. 6. The agieement with the observational values can be seen to improve very materially compared with that achieved by the Satz equation. (The correlation coefficient is 0.992.) There are several aspects to the computation: 3.1 The Neutral Particles. As pointed out in section 1.6 above, the neutrino and the neutron do not take any electric charge. I have shown elsewhere(4) that the ―½½‖ type of effective displacement in both the magnetic dimensions of these particles is what makes the acquirement of an electric charge impossibie. 3.2 Hydrogen. One of the two intermediate type of particles, H1, has the following speeds in its two rotating systems:
1
/3  ½  2
½½2
}
Since the speeds in the two rotating systems in the primary magnetic dimensions are unequal, their geometric means, (1/3 * ½)½ = 1/6 is to be taken. This causes the collinear effect. The transverse effect comes from the two speeds ½ and 2 in the remaining two dimensions. Thus, from eq. (2) we have:
EI,H1 = 8.68 * ( 6)½ * (½* 2)¼ = 13.585 eV. 3.3 The Inert Gases. A typical case is that of the inert gases, all of which have zero electric displacement. It must be recalled that the positive and negative zern.points (from either of which the atomic rotation can be alternatively reckoned) are separated by 8 (or 16) displacement units in the electric dimension.(8) Now for the purpose of talang on the electric charge the rotation in the electric dimension of the inert gases is able to assume the role of this alternative zeropoint. We shall refer to this phenomenon by the term ―zeroshifting.‖ Both He and Ne, with their smaller atomic numbers (net total electric displacement), are able to take the double leap of 16 units (two 8unit shift). This has been indicated in Table I by ¶¶. Kr, Xe and Rn, with higher atomic numbers, take on the 8unit zeroshift (indicated in Table I by ¶). Ar, the element next to Ne in the inert gas series, is also able to take on the 16unit zeroshift li.ke both of its predecessors. But its net total displacement being much higher than that of He or Ne, the probability of the 16unit shift competes equally with that of the 8unit shift resorted to by Kr and the higher members. We will find in a number of instances where alternative atomic rotational orientations are possible, as will be seen below, the question of the relative probabilities plays a significant role in determining the value of the ionization energy observed macroscopically. Pending detailed study of the relative probabilities we will assume that the 16unit shift and the 8unit shift have equal probabilities in the case of Ar. Thus the ionization energy of Ar comes out to be the arithmetic mean of the two values resulting from the 16unit shift and the 8unit shift, namely, 15.92 eV. 3.4 Etectronegative Elements. From the principles of the Reciprocai System it is evident that positive ionizationthat is, acquisition of a rotational vibratory space displacementof the atom is not possibie because of the space dispiacement in the electric dimension of these elements. The rotation in the electric dimension must assume an alternative orientation, thereby acting as an equivalent time displacement. This alternative orientation may be achieved by any of the following three expedients. 3.4.1 The first expedient is to revert to the aIlpositive equivalent displacement. Thus, for example, Ni, with the usual displacement of 33(8) can assume the equivalent displacement 3210. This allpositive displacement is not normally realized due to its lower probability. This possibility, therefore, occurs only when the element belongs to the highest position in Division III (see pp. 2234, Itef. 3—near the border between Divisions II and III. In fact, it is encountered in only one more case, that of Lu (44(15)). 3.4.2 If the rotation in the electric dimension is involved only in the transverse effect, another possibility opens up. In view of the spacetime symmetry around unity, a speed n can achieve the effect of inverting the spacetime orientation of the rotation by its ability to act in the capacity of its reciprocal, namely, the speed 1/n. But this ability to act as its reciprocal is limited only to the transverse effect and cannot extend to the collinear effect, since the transverse effect is an inverse effect itself. Thus, in the case of Au (44(7)), for example, the speed 8 in the electric dimension is able to act as speed 1/8 as far as the
production of the transverse effect is concerned. This type is indicated in Table I by §. Other examples are Cu, Pd, Ag, Cd, and Iif. The probability of this type of alternative configuration becomes very low as we move away from the middle of a Group. 3.4.3 Under these circumstances, none of the elements of Division IV nor any of those in the lowest positions in Division III are able to take up this expedient. The negative rotation in the electric dimension of these elements is, however, able to achieve the same result by taking recourse to the expedient of zeroshifting mentioned in section 3.3. As an example, let us consider the element Se with the displacement 33(2). An 8unit zeroshift in orientation turns the space displacement (2) into the time displacemen 6, which then is able to produce the collinear efiect. It must also be noted that the inversion of the orientation effected by the zeroshifting enables the rotation to exert either the collinear effect or the transverse effect with equal facility. In the example of Se cited above, the two effects seem to have equal probabilities. The macroscopic result, once again, is that the ionization energy required is the arithmetic mean of the two values. It will be seen that this alternative of zeroshifting is invariably the expedient adopted by all the elements of Division IV (and those of Division III nearer the border between Divisions III and IV, of Groups 2B, 3A, 3B and 4A. In the case of Group 4A elements Ta (44(14)) through Pt (44(8)) the 8unit zeroshift is not feasible, since the existing space displacement in the electric climension is greater than 8 units. These elements, therefore, take the 16unit zeroshift. It is worth noting that in the case of the elements S (32(2)), Se (33(2)), Os (44(10)), Ir (44(9)) and Pt (44(8))in all of which the electric displacement is at the bottom of the first or second 8unit stretchthe positive rotation effectuated by zeroshifting seems to act either in the collinear or in the transverse capacity with equal probability. This leaves the Division IV elements of Group 2A, which have some peculiarity arising out of their low net total displacement. These elements, N, O and F do resort to the zeroshifting, like the rest of their electronegative family, but, by virtue of their low net total displacements they are able to take on the 16unit double shift, like the two inert gas elements, He and Ne, that bracket their group. In fact, the probabilities of the 16unit and 8unit shifts are about the same for each of these elements. 4. The Special Cases. There remain two special cases in which the large discrepancy between the calculated and the observational values of the ionization energy seems to warrant further study ( i ) The first of these pertains to those elements with displacement 3 in their electric dimension, irrespective of whether this displacement is the direct positive value of 3, or the equivalent positive displacement 3 obtained by an 8unit zeroshifting of the negative displacement of 5. They are Al (223), Sc (323), Ga (33(5)), Y (333), In (43(5)) and La (433). The exceptions are B (213) at the low atomic number end, and Tl (44(5)) and Ac (443) at the high atomic number end. The calculated value, in these cases, exceeds the observational value by about 15 to 35%, as shown in Table II below.
Table II. Cases of Large Discrepancy
Ele. Calc. Obs. discr.(%)
——————————————————————— Al 8.08 5.986 35.0 Sc 7.52 6.54 14.9 Ga 7.52 5.999 30.7 Y 7.52 6.38 17.8 in 7.11 5.786 22.9 La 7.11 5.577 27.5 ( i i ) The second special case pertains to the electropositive elements of Group 4A, namely, the Lanthanides from Ce (434) through Tb (4311). The average calculated value of the ionization energy for these elements is 7.87 eV, while the average observational value is 5.62 eV.
References
1. R.W. Satz, ―Further Mathematics of the Reciprocal System,‖Reciprocity, X (3), 1980. 2. Idem, ―Photoionization and Photomagnetization,‖ Reciprocity, XII (1), Winter 198182. 3. D.B. Larson, ―Nothing But Motion, ‖North Pacific Publishers, Portland, Or., 1979, p.163. 4. K.V.K. Nehru, ―Internal Ionization and Secondary Mass,‖ privately circulated paper. 5. D.B. Larson, ―The Structure of rhe Physical Universe, ‖North Pacific Publishers, Portland, Or., 1959, p. 119. 6. J.A. Dean, ed., Lange‘s Handbook of Chemistry, 1973, pp. 36 to 38. 7. D.B. Larson, ―Solid Cohesion,‖ Reciprocity, XII (1), Winter 198182, 15. 8. Idem, Nothing But Motion, p. 222.
Table I. Ionization Energy of the Elements
Ele. H He Li Be B C N Dsplt, M 11(1) M½½(1) 210 211 212 213 214 22(3) 3 3 5 14¶¶ c/vm c/ve Specific Speed Trans.Eff. Ei in eV Calc. Obs.
6 17¶¶ 2
1/2 *2 1/2 .5*1/1.5 /3 *1/2 1/2 *1/3 1/2 *1/4 1/3*1/2 1/3*1/3
1
13.585 24.95 5.55 9.61 8.94 11.09 18.07
13.598 24.587 5.392 9.322 8.298 11.260
O
22(2)
F
22(1)
6¶¶ Av. 15¶¶ 7¶ Av. 16¶¶ 8¶ Av. 17¶¶ 2 3
1/3*1/3 1/3*1/3 1/3*1/3 1/3*1/2 .5 1/2 .5*1/2 .5 1/2 .5*1/2 .5 1/3*1/2 .5 1/2 .5*1/2 .5 1/3*1/4 1/2 .5*1/4.5 1/4*1/3 1/2 .5*1/4 1/2 .5*1/7¶
11.21 14.64 18.75 12.28 15.51 20.31 14.52 17.42 21.96
14.534
13.618
17.422 21.564
Ne Na Mg Al Si P S
220 221 222 223 224 32(3) 32(2)
5.25 5.139 7.76 7.646 3 8.08 5.986 3 8.21 8.151 6¶ 10.43 10.486 7¶ 11.96 4 8.49 Av. 10.22 10.360 Cl 32(1) 8¶ 1/2 .5*1/4 12.91 12.976 ———————————————————————————————— Ar 320 17¶¶ 1/4*1/3 18.65 9¶ 1/4*1/3 13.19 Av. 15.92 15.759 K Ca Sc Ti V Cr Mn Fe Co Ni Cu Zn Ga Ge As Se 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 33(8) 33(7) 33(6) 33(5) 33(4) 33(3) 33(2) 2 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4¶ 4 6¶ 7¶ 4 Br Kr Rb Sr 33(1) 330 331 332 Av. 8¶ 9¶ 2 3 1/4*1/3 1/4*1/3 1/4*1/4 1/4*1/5 1/4*1/6 1/3.5*1/7 1/3*1/8 1/2 .5*1/9 1/2 .5*1/9.5 1/2 .5*1/10.5+ 1/3.5*1/7.5§ 1/4*1/3¶ 1/4*1/4 1/4*1/5¶ 1/4*1/4 1/3.5*1/3.5 1/3.5*1/6.5¶ 1/4*1/3.5 1/3.5*1/3.5 1/4*1/4 1/4*1/4 4.66 6.60 7.52 7.11 6.79 6.76 7.84 7.97 7.86 7.67 7.67 9.33 7.52 8.21 9.70 11.36 7.95 9.66 11.87 13.12 4.34 6.14 4.341 6.113 6.54 6.82 6.74 6.766 7.435 7.870 7.86 7.635 7.726 9.394 5.999 7.899 9.81
9.752 11.814 13.999 4.177 5.695
Y Zr Nb Mo Tc Ru Rh Pd Ag Cd In Sn Sb Te I Xe
333 334 335 336 337 338 339 43(8) 43(7) 43(6) 43(5) 43(4) 43(3) 43(2) 43(1) 430
4 4 4 4 4 4 4 5 4 4 4¶ 4 5 5 8¶ 9¶
1/4*1/4 1/4*1/5 1/4*1/6 1/4*1/7 1/4*1/8 1/3.5*1/8.5 1/3.5*1/9.5 1/3.5*1/8.5§ 1/4.5*1/7.5§ 1/5*1/3¶ 1/5*1/4 1/5*1/5¶ 1/4*1/6¶ 1/3.5*1/6.5¶ 1/5*1/4 1/4.5*1/3.5
7.52 8.21 7.84 7.55 7.30 7.43 7.23 8.31 7.20 8.82 7.11 7.76 8.77 8.89 10.86 12.32
6.38 6.84 6.88 7.099 7.28 7.37 7.46 8.34 7.576 8.993 5.786 7.344 8.641 9.009 10.451 12.130
Cs 431 2 1/5*1/4 4.12 3.894 Ba 432 3 1/5*1/4 5.80 5.212 La 433 4 1/5*1/4 7.11 5.577 Dy 4312 4 1/5*1/13 6.11 5.93 Ho 4313 4 1/5*1/14 6.00 6.02 Er 4314 4 1/5*1/15 5.90 6.10 Tm 4315 4 1/4.5*1/15.5 6.01 6.18 Yb 4316 4 1/4.5*1/6.5 5.91 6.254 Lu 44(15) 4+ 1/5*1/18+ 5.64 5.426 Hf 44(14) 5 1/4.5*1/14.5§ 6.83 7.0 Ta 44(13) 4¶¶ 1/4.5*1/4.5 7.09 7.89 W 44(12) 5¶¶ 1/5*1/4.5 7.97 7.98 Re 44(11) 5 1/5*1/6¶¶ 8.29 7.88 Os 44(10) 7¶¶ 1/5*1/5 9.51 5 1/5*1/7¶¶ 7.98 Av. 8.74 8.7 Ir 44(9) 8¶¶ 1/5*1/5 10.27 5 1/4.5*1/7.5¶¶ 8.05 Av. 9.16 9.1 Pt 44(8) 9¶¶ 1/5*1/5 10.98 5 1/5*1/9¶¶ 7.49 Av. 9.23 9.0 Au 44(7) 5 1/5*1/8§ 7.72 5 1/5*1/2 ¶ 10.91 Av. 9.31 9.225 Hg 44(6) 5 1/4.5*1/2 .5¶ 10.60 10.437 Tl Pb 44(5) 44(4) 4¶ 5¶ 1/5*1/5 1/5*1/5 6.72 7.76 6.108 7.416
Bi Po Rn Ra Ac Th
44(3) 44(2) 440 442 443 444
5 5 9¶ 3 4 5
1/5/1/6¶ 1/4.5*1/6.5¶ 1/5*1/5 1/5*1/5 1/5*1/4.5 1/5*1/5
8.29 8.35 10.98 5.49 6.90 7.76
7.289 8.42 10.748 5.279 6.9 6.95
Note: + Altemative allpositive displacement § Inverse electric speed (in transverse effect only) ¶ 8unit zeroshift (in the electric dimension) ¶¶ 16unit zeroshift
THE LAW OF CONSERVATION OF DIRECTION
Introduction
Some students of the Reciprocal Syetem (RS) have been disputing the explanation of the intrinsic structure of the photons, given by Larson, the originator of the R.S. No amount of discussion, so far, seemed to throw additional light in overcoming the logical objections raised. An examination of the situation undertaken by the present investigator revealed that a crucial fact of fundamental nature is being missed hitherto, both by the originator and the other students. It is found that a recognition of this fact not only clarifies the photon situation entirely but also throws light on many collateral issues where gaps in the logical development of the theory exist, thus rendering the theory more cogent. Some of these new developments are reported in this Paper.
The Difficulties with Larson‘s Account of the SHM
In the outline of the deductive development of his theory Larson states: ―The continuity of the progresaion within the units enables the exiatence of another type of scalar motion of physical locations. This is a motion in which there is a continuous and uniform change from outward to inward and vice versa; that is, a simple hczrmonic motion.‖¹ A little earlier (item 5 of the Ref. cited) he defines ―outward‖ and ―inward‖ as being the scalar directions and representing motion away from and toward a ref erence point in the stationary threedimensional spatial reference system respectively. The former results in increasing intervening distance while the latter in decreasing intervening distance. Since there is nothing like more outward (inward) or less outward (inward) the question arises as to the meaning of the statement ―a continuous and uniform change from outward to inward‖? Outward and inward, as applied to scalar motion, are discrete directions: the acalar motion could be either outward or inward. There are no intermediate possibilities. Larson is quite clear about this, at another juncture: ―When the progression within a unit of motion reaches the end of the unit it either reverses or does not reverse. There are no intermediate posaibility.‖² As such, the idea of a ―constant and uniform change‖ is logically incompatible with, this concept of ―outwardinward motion.‖ It muat be remembered that the mavgnitude of the motion is constant, being unity. Since simple harmonic motion (SHM) does seem to underlie the structure of photons, the crux of the problem of understanding the nature of the photon is the explanation of the genesis of the SHM given only uniform scalar speed. If a vibration of the type Larson prnposes is to exist, it can not be a SHM. The speed has to be a square wave. SHM seems possible only if one of the components (space or time) progressea nonuniformly while the other progresses uniformly. In fact, SHM will be the result under the two circumstances: (i) when a constant magnitude is continuously and uniformly changing its direction in the conventional reference system (as in rotation) and its projection in a constant direction is being considered; or (ii) when there is a constant direction and the magnitude is continuously and nonuniformly changing. The second alternative is precluded by definition (see item D of the Basic Principles in the ―Outline‖³).
Is Rotation Primary ?
A scalar motion has magnitude only, and no inherent spatial direction. It therefore has to be given a direction in order to be represented in a spatial ref erence system. Now a ―constant and uniform change‖ envisaged by Larson can only happen if the representation in the reference system changes the vectorial direction uniformly as in rotation. As a matter of fact, SHM will be the result if two such rotations, mutually opposite in direction, are vectorially combined. But Larson does not pasit the possibility of rotation prior to the existence of photons. Thus he states: ―While motion is possible without anything moving, rotation is not possible unless some physical object is available to be rotated.‖4 The logical basis for this conclusion is hard to find. Rotation is as much a motion as translation is, and logically it must be as much possible without any ―thing‖ rotating, as far as the primary motions are concerned. One wonders, in this context, if the author is completely free of the unconscious leanings to the frame of mind that underlies the view of the universe of matter as against the univerae of motion! Rotation is precluded only if space is onedimensional. Juat as soon as it is established that the stationary spatial reference system is threedimensional, rotation becomea a possibility. Larson himaelf, while discussing the status of the uncharged electron, refers to the general nature of space which includes rotation as much as linear translation. ―Thus the electron is essentially nothing more than a rotating unit of space. This is a concept that is rather difficult for most of us when it is first encountered, because it conflicts with the idea of the nature of space that we have gained from a longcontinued, but uncritical, examination of our surroundings. ... The ―space‖ of our ordinary experience, extension space, ... is merely one manifestation of space in general ...‖5. Therefore, what is not being explicitly recognized is that, in general, space has two intrinsic traits: translational and rotational. The translational trait manifests to us as the familiar ―extension space,‖ whereas the rotational traitwhich manifests as difference in directionsia not so readily regarded by common experience as manifestation of space. Hence the representation of a uniform scalar motion in the conventional reference system can take either the form a uniform and continuous change of linear magnitude with a constant direction, or the form of a uniform and continuous change of direction, with a constant linear magnitude, that is, a rotation.
Conservation of Direction
As already pointed out, a scalar motion does not have a vectorial direction. The latter is a property acquired due to the coupling with the conventional stationary threedimensional spatial reference system, which involves also the identification of a reference point. A point of universal significance that needs to be recognized is that the representation of a scalar motion in the conventional reference system conserves direction. This is accomplished by the representation by substituting two opposite directionswhat we will call a ‗bidirection‘ for the original lack of direction.
For example, consider the motion of a point 0 that is made the reference point. Consider two locations, A and B, on a straight line passing through 0, and situated on opposite sides of 0 (Fig. 1). In the csse of an outward scalar motion we find both A and B receding from 0 (Fig. 1(a)). On the other hand, if O‘s motion is vectorial we find B (or A) receding from 0, and A (or B) approaching it (Fig. 1 (b)). Thus a scalar motion gets represented as a ‗bivector‘ and not merely as a vector. The appearance of a bivectorial motion in the conventional reference system, therefore, serves to distinguish an intrinsically scalar motion from vectorial motion. Representation of linear motion in the reference system
An analogy might help to demonstrate the universality of the Law of Conservation of Direction. Imagine a long solid cylinder with a crosssectional area of an arbitrary shape. If the cylinder is now divided into two by cutting with a plane, two new surfaces, S1 and S2, will be generated as the ends of the two halves of the cylinder where there were none prior to the cutting. Adopting the right hand corkscrew representation of areas, we can see that the two intersection surfaces, S1 and S2, will be of equal area but opposite directions (one being the mirror image of the other). The original lack of (exposed) area is substituted by two equal areas of opposite vectorial directions. It is simply not possible to carry out the intersection such that only one new surface is generated. In an identical manner, the representation in the conventional apatial reference frame of a scalar motion, with its inherent lack of direction, is not possible with the ascription of only a single directionit requires the imputation of two mutually opposite directions, in other words, a bidirection.
Photon: an Intrinsic SHM ?
In case the representation of a scalar motion in the stationary threedimensional reference system is rotational motion instead of translational motion, the requirement of the conservation of direction still holds good, the reprssentation taking the form of a birotation. The birotation is a vectorial combination of two equal and opposite rotations, clockwise (CW) and counterclockwise (CCW). Some students of the RS have argued that the CW or CCW direction of rotation is the algebraic sign, the sense, of the rotation and not really a direction. Therefore they concluded that rotation has no true direction. But they are missing the point. What their conclusion means is that rotation does not have a direction in the sense of a direction of linear motion. The CW or CCW sense of rotation is relative to the axis of rotation, but the axis itself can be oriented in any direction in the threedimensional spatial reference system. Adopting the right hand corkscrew representation of rotation, the latter can be vectorially depicted . Because of the discrete unit limitation a mere change of direction (as in rotation) without any magnitude is not possible. Hence a unit of birotation involves half a unit of one
dimensional space element in each of its component rotations. As shown in Fig. 2, let one component rotation be CW, and the refer ence point for this rotation be O, OA being the radius of rotation with the axis of rotation perpendicular to the plane of the paper. The reference point for the second component rotation, which is CCW, will be A, with AB as radius and axis parallel to that of the first rotation. Since the angular speeds of the two rotations are of equal magnitude, the visible result of this birotation is a SHM, with location B oscillating in the XX‘ direction. This, therefore, is how the SHM is engendered by uniform motionthe basis of photon structure. Figure 2
Simple Harmonic Motion as Birotation At this juncture it might be mentioned that, in this Paper, we are endeavoring to discuss some logical difficulties occurring in the present development of the RS and to clarify them in the light of the discovery of the Law of Conservation of Direction. It is not possible, however, to undertake here the full development of the aspects we discuss beyond supplying the missing links in the logic. It is assumed that the reader is sufficiently familiar with the account of the development of RS as given by Larson in his works. Polarization Suppose now that a light beam is passed through a polarizer and one of the component rotations of the photons is filtered out. The outcoming photons will be constituted of a continuous uniform rotation, with the axis of rotation lying parallel to the direction of propagation. If a blackened disk is suspended by a fine filament and ia irradiated by such a circularly polarized beam of radiation such that the beam travels parallel to the suspenaion and atrikea the diak normally, a torque should appear. This, of course, is experimentally verified. It might be noted that in Laraon's account of the structure of the photon there is no explanation of thia fact.
Vibration vs. Translation
Since each unit of motion, by the reciprocal poatulate, consists of one unit of space in association with one unit of time, all motion takes place at unit speed. However, by a sequence of reversals of the progreasion of either time or space, while the other component (space or time) continues progressing unidirectionally, an efiective speed other than unity can result. Explaining this, Larson gives a tabulation² for the example of an effective apeed of 1/3 (see Table I). unit number 1 2 3 4 Table I: DIRECTION vibration scalar vectorial scalar inward right inward outward left outward inward right inward inward left inward translation vectirial forward backward forward forward
5 6
outward inward
right left
outward inward
backward forward
It may be seen that in the case of the translational situation the vectorial direction reverses in unison with the scalar direction. But in the case of the vectorial vibration it is not so: it is perplexing why the scalar and vectorial directions do not maintain a constant relationship in the case of the vibrational motion (cp., for example, the third and the fourth units in the tabulation). Larson comes up with an explanation of a sort, which sounds more like an apology: ―...in order to maintain continuity in the relation of the vectorial motion to the fixed reference system the vectorial direction continues the regular reversals at the points where the scalar motion advances to a new unit of space (or time).‖6 On the principles of probability, the alternative possibility, namely, the vectorial directional reversals occurring in unison with the scalar directional reversals appears more logical. The present recognition of the fact that the linear vectorial vibration is really the manifested result of a birotation now clarifies the situation. Both in the case of the vibration and in the case of the translation the vectorial directional reversal is in unison with the scalar directional reversal. In the vibrational case, the two component rotations involved in the birotation do promptly reverse their respective directions at the time of the reversal of the scalar direction. However, this does not produce any effect on their vector resultant, which continues uninterrupted as the SHM. Referring to Fig. 2, let A reach the poaition A‘ and B the poaition B'. Thia is one extreme position of the oscillation of B. From this position whether OA‘ continues rotate in the original CW direction or reversea and rotatea in the CCW direction (with the sense of rotation of the aecond rotation always being opposite to that of the rotation of OA) hardly mattersin either case the observable result ia the same oscillatory motion of B.
Conclusions
Summarizing some of the concluaions reached: 1. The representation of a scalar motion in the these dimenaional spatial reference system conserves direction by substituting bidirection for its in herent lack of direction unit vibration translation number sca,lar vectorial scalar vectorial 1 inward right inward forward 2 outward left outward backward 3 inward right inward forward 4 inward left inward forward 6 outward right outward backward 6 inward left inward forward 2. The primary displacement from the background condition of the spacetime progression takes the form of a uniform birotation, the vector resultant of which manifeats as a SHM. This ia identified as the photon. 3. Circular polarization is the result of filtering out one of the component rotationa of the photon.
References
1. D. B. Lareon, ―Outline of the Deductive Development of the Theory of the Universe of Motion,‖ Reciprocity XVII(1), Spring 1988, p. 8 (item 16) 2. D. B. Lareon, Nothing but Motion, North Pacific Pub.,Or.,U.S.A., 1979, p.98 3. D. B. Larson, Outline, op. cit., p. 6. 4. D. B. Lsrson, Nothing but Motion, op. cit., p. 57. 5. D. B. Larson, Basic Properties o f Matter Int. Soc. of Unified Science, Utah, U.S.A ., 1988, pp. 1023 6. D. B. Lareon, Nothing but Motinn, op. cit., p. 50. K.V.K. Nehru
IS FERROMAGNETISM A COMAGNETIC PHENOMENON
Introduction
According to the Reciprocal System, magnetism is the manifestation of twodimensional scalar motion of the rotational vibration type with space displacement. Since the stationary threedimensional spatial frame of reference is capable of representing not more than one dimension of a scalar motion, only one dimension of the motion of a magnetic charge, which is two (scalar)  dimensional, is observable while the scalar motion in the second dimension is unobservable. In the phenomenon of the ferromagnetism the material exhibits large spontaneous magnetization in the absence of any externally applied magnetic field, below a characteristic temperature called the Curie point. Relatively few elements are ferromagnetic. This is because ―a magnetic charge, as a distinct entity, can exist only where an atom is so constituted that there is a portion of the atomic structure that can vibrate twodimensionally independently of the main body of the atom.‖(1) This precludes many elements from being ferromagnetic. Another important point that we need to note is that ―Ferromagnetism is a phenomenon of the time region, and its natural zero point (the Curie temperature) is therefore a boundary between two dissimilar regions ...‖(2) The rotational vibration which is the magnetic charge is not a basic motion; it is a modification of a specific portion of the basic rotation of the atom. In a solid state the atomic motion is already in equilibrium in the time region. The magnetic charge, therefore, effectively crosses a regional boundary when the motion falls below the time region unit of space, which is a compound unit and is smaller than the natural unit of space by the interregional ratio, 156.444.(3)
Into the Time Region
The conventional theory tries to explain the spontaneous magnetization of the ferromagnetism by the mutual magnetic interaction of the atomic dipoles. The initial attempts at this explanation ran into trouble when it was found that the strength of this interaction which is needed to explain the observed high intensity of magnetization had to be nearly 104 times that of the postulated dipoledipole interaction. When all rational attempts to account for the origin of this high interaction streneth have failed. auantum mechanics was invoked to interpret it as a purely hypothetical ‗exchange interaction.‘ In the Reciprocal System, however, the explanation comes out naturally: it stems from the second power relation between the corresponding quantities of the inside and the outside regions. Explaining cohesion in solids Larson points out: ―As we found in Chapter 12, Vol. I, the equivalent of distance s in the time region is s², and the ... force in this region therefore varies as the fourth power of the distance rather than the square.‖(4) The interatomic distance in solids is, on the average, of the order of the compound unit of space applicable to the time region, namely, the natural unit of space divided by the
interregional ratio, 156.444. Therefore, the dipoledipole interaction strength worked out on the basis of the inverse fourth power law would turn out to be (156.44)² or nearly 2.5 x 104 times stronger than that calculated on the basis of the inverse square law. This is precisely what is needed to account for the observed state of affairs.
CoMagnetism
In an earlier paper(5) we have shown that when the magnetic motion enters the time region, the apparent direction of the motion reverse, resulting in an attraction of like poles and a repulsion of unlike poles. The phenomenon has been referred to as ‗comagnetism.‘ This is illustrated in Fig.l, which is reproduced from the above referred paper. Figure 1 Magnetism vs. Comagnetism
It can be gathered from Fig. 1(c) that the minimum energy configuration for two magnetic dipoles when located adjacent to each other is when the respective dipole directions are antiparallel, and if placed collinearly is when the dipole directions are parallel. On the other hand, in the case of comagnetism, as could be seen from Fig. I(d), the minimum energy configuration of two dipoles which are adjacent is when their directions are parallel and if they are collinear when their directions are antiparallel. The scheme of orientations is illustrated in Fig. 2. Figure 2 Dipole Orientations for Least Energy
We shall presently show how comagnetism is responsible for the domain structure characteristic of the ferromagnetic order. The point that is of significance here is that the magnetic charge (motion) is two dimensional. If p and q are respectively the effective speeds in the two scalar dimensions concerned of the magnetic charge, the motion of the charge crosses the regional boundary effectively when the product, p*q, or more correctly, their geometric mean, falls below the value of the compound unit of space. This could happen in either of the three ways (see also the Appendix): Case (i): when the component motion p, pertaining to the dimension parallel to the dimension of the conventional spatial reference frame, is still outside the compound unit, while the component q, pertaining to the second scalar dimension (which we shall refer to
as the ‗transverse dimension‘' for the purposes of this paper) crosses the regional boundary and enters the inside region; Case (ii): when the component p crosses the regional boundary which the component q is still outside it; and Case (iii): when both the components cross the boundary and enter the inside of the compound unit. Though ―the motion components in the second dimension are not capable of direct representation in the conventional spatial reference system, ... they have indirect effects that are observable, particularly on the effective magnitudes.‖(6). Further, quoting Larson: ―.. a two dimensional (magnetic) charge consists of a rotational vibration in the dimension of the reference system and another in a second scalar dimension independent of the first, and therefore perpendicular to it in a geometrical representation.‖(7) Following our notation, we can conclude that the motion component q pertaining to the transverse (scalar) dimension, though not observable directly in the conventional reference frame, nonetheless, has indirect effects that do manifest in the geometric representations, in directions that are perpendicular to the dipole direction. Coupling this conclusion with the inferences we have drawn earlier, concerning the least energy configurations of the magnetic and comagnetic dipole pairs respectively, we can deduce the types of ordering that are possible in aggregates of these dipoles for the cases (i) to (iii) noted above. These are shown in Fig. 3. Figs. 3 (a), (b) and (c) respectively depict cases (i), (ii) and (iii). Figure 3 Magnetic/Comagnetic Ordering
It is at once evident that case (i) results in the allparallel dipole ordering called the ferromagnetic. The remaining cases can be seen to result in the antiferromagnetic orderings. In the case when the adjacent magnetic charges are of differing magnitudes antiferromagnetism shows up as ferrimagnetism.
Summary
(1) The ferro and antiferromagnetic phenomena are the result of the magnetic charge entering the inside of the time region unit of space. (2) The apparently strong interaction that is responsible for the spontaneous magnetization stems from the second power relations relevant to the inside region. (3) The ferro and antiferromagnetic orderings of the dipoles are the result of either one or both of the motion components of the twodimensional motion that is the magnetic charge entering the inside region and thereby turning into the comagnetic in the the dimension concerned.
References
1. D.B. Larson, Basic Properties of Matter, Intl. Soc. of Unified Science, 1680 East Atkin Av., Salt Lake City, Utah 84106, U.S.A, 1988, pp. 215216 2. Ibid., p. 251 3. Ibid., p. 6 4. Ibid., pp. 78 5. K.V.K Nehru, ―Glimpses into the Structure of Sun: Part I, The Nature of Stellar Matter,‖ Reciprocity, XVII(2), Autumn 1988, pp.14.21 6. D.B. Larson, Basic Pronerties of Matter, op. cit., p. 212 7. Ibid., p. 213
Appendix
Theoretically there could be seven types of the dipole orderings. Let p be the component of the magnetic charge in the collinear direction, and q be the one in the traverse direction, of the geometric representations. Splitting q into q1 and q2 to represent each of the two transverse directions and adopting brackets to indicate that the component is inside the compound unit of space, we have the following seven possibilities, all of which exemplify the magnetic charge crossing the interregional boundary: (i) P  [q1]  [q2] (ii) [p]  ql  q2 (iii) [p]  [ql]  [q2] (iv) p  [ql]  q2 (v) p  q1  [q2] (vi) [P]  [q1]  q2 (vii) [P]  ql  [q2] Of these, combinations (iv) and (v) are geometrically identical. So are combinations (vi) and (vii). Only the first combination gives rise to ferromagnetism. All the remaining lead to antiferromagnetism. The characteristic common to all the antiferromagnetic combinations is the occurence of parallel crystal planes such that while the dipoles in any plane are all mutually parallel, the dipoles in neighboring planes are antiparallel. The matter in which these combinations differ from each other is in the orientation of these planes and in the inclination of the dipole direction with respect to these planes.
THEORETIGAL EVALUATION OF PLANCK'S CONSTANT
The analysis of physical quatities into their spacetime components, made possible by the application of the Reciprocal System, throws fresh illumination on the nature and significance of these quantities. Larson demonstrates that the result of applying the discrete unit postulate to the dimensions of physical quantities results in the principle that the dimensions of the numerator of the spacetime expression of any real physical quantity cannot be greater than those of the denominator. Quoting Larsonl¹: The most notable of the quantities excluded by this dimensional principle is ―action.‖ This is the product of energy, t/s, and time t, and in spacetime terms it is t² /s Thus it is not admissible as a real physical quantity . . . The equation connecting the energy of radiation with the frequency is E = hv where h is Planck‘s constant . . . expressed in terms of action. It is clear, however, from the explanation of the nature of the photon of radiation . . . that the socalled ―frequency‖ is actually a speed. It can be expressed as a frequency only because the space that is involved is always a unit magnitude. In reality, the space dimension belongs with the frequency, not with the Planck‘s constant. When it is thus transferred, . . . the equation for energy of radiation is [in spacetime terms] t/s = t²/s² * s/t <1> In The Structure of the Physical Universe Larson derives the value of Planck‘s constant on this basis, making use of the gravitational constant. In this paper I attempt to do the same, but without bringing the gravitational constant into the picture, with the hope of showing the factors involved more clearly. We will adopt the suffix c to denote a quantity expressed in the conventional units, no suffix to denote the quantity expressed in the natural units, and suffix n to denote the magnitude of the natural unit of a quantity expressed in terms of the conventional units. Remembering that, on the natural unit basis, any unit of a physical quantity is also the unit of the corresponding inverse quantity, every unit of energy is both a unit of t/s and a unit of s/t, each in its proper context,z from eq. <1> the quantitative relationship between E natural units of energy and u natural units of speed can be expressed as E = (1/1) u since the numerical magnitude of the t²/s² term is (1/1)² in natural units. The speed u is given by the quotient of S natural units of space and T natural units of time. Therefore, E = S/T
Now we will introduce the conventional units into the equation, but will do so only in the case of those quantities which we want expressed in the conventional units finally. Since E = Ec /En and T = Tc /Tn, we have Ec= (En * Tn) S/Tc <2> However, from what has been quoted earlier, we note that the numerical magnitude S in eq. <2> is 1, since the vibration is confined to one natural unit of space. The lack of recognition of the true status of the frequency term as a speed term and expressing every quantity in terms of the conventional units (i.e., including 1 cm in place of S) therefore has the effect of overstating the numerical value on the RHS by a factor of 1 cm/Sn. As such, the RHS must be multiplied by the reciprocal of this factor. Thus, E (in ergs) = (En * Tn * Sn /1 cm) 1/Tc (in sec) Or, replacing 1/T by v, the frequency in Hertz, Ec =(En* Tn* Sn / 1 cm) v from which we have Planck's constant as h = En * Tn * Sn /1 cm <5> There are two additional factors to be considered before we can arrive at the numerical magnitude of h. Firstly, since the photon vibration is limited to the timeregion while measurements appertain to the outside region, this value of h is to be reduced by the interregional ratio R. Hence, h = (En* Tn* Sn )/(r * 1 cm) <6> The second factor is concerned with the effect of the secondary mass component s. As long as mass is expressed in the dynamical unit of gram, it becomes necessary to take account of the discrepancy between the units of primary mass and inertial mass. Thus, when adopting the gramunit, the mass term is to be multiplied by a factor of 1+s, where 1 is the primary mass and s the secondary mass.4 In the present case, since energy is t/s while mass is ³/³;, the multiplying factor is (1+s).¹/³ Thus, h = [(En* Tn* Sn ) / (R *1 cm)) * [1+s)¹/³ Adopting the values from Ref. 3, En = 1.49175/ * 10 3 erg Tn = 1.520655 * 10 16 sec Sn = 4.558816 * 10 6 cm Rn = 156.4444 (Ref. 5), and for the secondary mass calculation, from Ref. 6, m, magnetic mass = 0.00639205, we have the value of Planck's constant as h = 6.6243162 * 10 27 ergsec <8> <7> <4> <3>
But it must be noted that m, the magnetic mass, is not the only component of the secondary mass s. This is because in the particles with unit net displacement (like, for example, 1 1 M   0 2 2 there is alraays an initial unit of electric mass, of magnitude 0.0005787. Thus 1+s becomes 1.00697075. Substituting this in equation <7> gives h = 6.6255857 * 10 27 ergsec
27
<9>
This is in close agreement with the experimental value of 6.6256 * 10 ergsec (within an error of 2.16 * 104percent).
REFERENCES
1. l. D. B. Larson, Nothing But Motion, (North Pacific Publishers: Portland, OR, 1979), p.152 2. Ibid., p. 169 (see lines 64 from bottom). 3. Ibid., p. 160. 4. Ibid., p. 170. 5. Ibid., p. 162. 6. Ibid., p. 164.
SUPERCONDUCTIVITY: A TIME REGION PHENOMENON
1. INTRODUCTION
The chief characteristic of superconductiv ity is the complete absence of the electrical resistance. As the temperature is decreased, the change from the normal to the superconducting state takes place abruptly at a critical temperature Tc. Though the phenomenon was discovered as far back as 1911, it resisted all theoretical understanding and not until 1957 was the famous BCS theory propounded. According to this theory, superconductivity occurs when the repulsive interaction between two electrons is overcome by an attractive one, resulting from a mechanism which gives rise to electron pairs since then known to be called the ―Cooper Pairs‖ that behaved like bosons and moved without resistance. The tunneling and flux quantization experiments firmly established the presence of electron pairs. However, the phonon mechanism of electron pairing remained experimentally un proven. Subsequent experimental work brought to light many anomalies and unexplained results which demonstrated the inadequacy of the BCS theory. The theoretical trend, in the past decade, has been toward invoking the quantum mechanical concept of ―exchange interactions‖ for the explanation of the formation of the electron pairs. The explanation of the phenomenon of superconductivity from the point of view of the Reciprocal System, however, has not yet been attempted. Larson himself refers to the phenomenon with nothing more than a passing remark [1]. As the present author sees, progress toward this end would not have been possible in the R.eciprocal System, as it needed the discovery of a new development, which emerged only recently. This is the new light thrown by the study of the ―photon controversy,‖ leading to the discovery of birotation [2]. It has been shown there that the two equal, and opposite rotational components of a birotation manifest as a linear Simple Harmonic Motion (SHM). The knowledge of this now opens the way toward understanding the phenomenon of superconductivity.
2. The Origin of the Phenomenon
It has been wellrecognized that superconductivity, from the abruptness of its occurrence at the temperature Tc, is a collective phenomenon—like that of ferromagnetism, for example—involving all particles cooperatively. We have shown that the ferromagnetic ordering is the phenomenon of the time region [3]. We now find that superconductivity is the result of the electron motion entering the time region. In fact, since in solids the atoms are already in the time region, the region inside unit space, it follows that superconductivity, like ferromagnetism, results when the motion concerned crosses another regional boundary, namely, the time region unit of space (which is a compound unit)
2.1 The Perfect Conductor
Larson points out: ―... the electron is essentially nothing more than a rotating unit of space.‖ [4] He identifies the movement of the electrons (rotating units of space) through matter (a time structure) as the electric current. We might note that there is no electric charge associated with these electrons. One of the causes, according to Larson, of the resistance to the flow of current is the spatial component of the thermal motion of the atoms. ―If the atoms of the matter through which the current passes are effectively at rest..., uniform motion of the electrons (space) through matter has the same general properties as motion of matter through space. It follows Newton‘s first law of motion . and can continue indefinitely... This situation exists in the phenomenon known as superconductivity.‖[1] We would like to point out that the actual situation is somewhat different. Firstly, as we will see later, superconductivity is not solely a phenomenon of zero resistance which we shall call the perfect conduction (that is, infinite conductivity), which is what Larson seems to imply by ‗superconductivity‘ in the para cited above. The second fact is concerning the resistance caused by the impurity atoms due to their space displacement. Since the current moves, according to the Reciprocal System, through all the atoms of the conductor (including the impurity atoms), and not through the interstices between the atoms, there is a large contribution by the impurity atoms to the resistance.[5] Mere reduction of the thermal motion, therefore, cannot serve to eliminate the cause of resistance to the current.
2.2 The Electron Pair as a Birotation
In the ―uncharged state the electrons cannot move with reference to extension space, because they are inherently rotating units of space, and the relation of space to space is not motion. ...In the context of the stationary spatial system the uncharged electron, like the photon, is carried outward by the progression of the natural reference system.‖[6] But as the temperature is decreased below the critical value Tc, and the electrons in the solid enter the region of the inside of the compound unit of space, the direction of the electron motion changes from outward to inward from the point of view of the stationary reference system. Thus the electrons start moving toward each other, as if mutually attracting. Remembering that the electron is a unit of rotational space, when two of them with antiparallel rotations approach each other to an effeetive distance of less than one compound unit of space, the two opposite rotations form into a birotation. As explained in detail elsewhere [2] a birotation manifests as an SHM. We might call this process the ―pair condensation,‖ following the conventional nomenclature. The formation into the birotation (that is, SHM) has two distinct effects which need to be noted: (i) the character of the motion changes from rotational (twodimensional in extension space) to linear (onedimensional in extension space); (ii) the magnitude of the motion changes from steady (constant speed in time) to undulatory (varying speed in time).
Let us call these two effects respectively the ―dimensionreduction‖ and the ―activation‖ for ease of future reference.
2.3 The Zero Electrical Resistivity
The rotational space, that is the electron, may be regarded as a circular disk area. We see that the effect of the dimensionalreduction is to turn the disk area into a straight line element (of zero area). What causes the electrical resistance in normal conduction is the finiteness of the projected area of the electron in the direction of current flow. The vanishing of this pro jected area on pair formation eliminates the cause for the resistance and turns the material into a perfect conductor (zero resistivity). It should be emphasized that a dimensionreduction from a threedimensional spatial extension (say, a spherical volume) to a twodimensional spatial extension (a circular disk) could not have accomplished such an elimination of projected area. This is only possible when the reduction is from a twodimensional spatial extension to the onedimension. In the conventional parlance we might say that while the singleelectron (rotational) is a fermion, the electron pair (linear SHM) behaves as a boson. In the analogous case of a photon, we see that the photon is a linear SHM and is a boson. One can, therefore, conjecture that the circularly polarized photon [2] ought to behave like a fermion. I suppose that an experimental verification of this prediction could easily be borne out.
3. The Meissner Effect
This an interaction between superconductivity and magnetic field and serves to distinguish a superconductor from the socalled ―perfect conductor.‖ If we could place a perfect conductor in an external magnetic field, no lines of magnetic flux would penetrate the sample since the induced surface currents would counteract the effect of the extern,al field. Now imagine a normal conductor. placed in the magnetic field and the temperature lowered, such that at Tc it turns into a perfect conductor while in that field (see top row Fig.l, which is adopted from R.ef.[7]). The field that was coursing through it would be continuing to do so (top center, Fig.l). If now the external field is removed (top right) the change in this field would induce electrical currents in it which would be persisting (as there is no resistance), and these currents produce tlie internal flux that gets locked in as shown. But the situation is quite different in the case of the superconductor. As can be seen from the bottom row of Fig.l, a metal placed in an external magnetic field and cooled through the superconducting transition temperature Tc expels all flux lines from the interior (providing, of course, the field is less than a critical value, Hc) (see bottom center). This is called the Meissner Effect. In fact, the external field threading the superconductor generates persistent surface currents, and these currents generate an internal field that exactly counterbalances the external field resulting in the flux expulsion phenomenon. Termination of the external field induces an opposing surface cur rent which cancels the previous one and leaves the superconductor both fieldfree and current free. Now the crucial point that should be noted is that a constant magnetic flux threading a conductor that is stationary relative to it does not induce an electric current. What induces
a current is a change in the magnetic field. In the case of a perfect conductor we considered above, the field is steady (that is, constant with time) and no induced currents appear (top center, Fig.l).
The perfect Conductor
The Superconductor T < Tc H>0 T < Tc 0< H < Hc T < Tc H=0
FIG. 1 THE MEISSNER EFFECT But in the case of the superconductor, the steady field does induce an electric current. This has been a recalcitrant fact that defed explanation in the conventional theory and forced the theorists to hazard weird conceptual contrivances like the exchange interactions. The development of the Reciprocal System has clearly demonstrated that in all such cases there is no need to devise extreme departures from the otherwise understandable straightforward explanations. For instance, we have shown in the explanation of ferromagnetism there is no need to invoke the aid an ―exchange interaction‖ at all [3]. It was shown that understanding of the origin and charaeteristics of that phenornenon follows from the recognition that it has crossed a regional boundary and entered the time region. Exactly for identical reasons, we find that in the present too, there is no need to resort to the purely hypothetical exchange interaction explanation. The reason why a steady magnetic field threading the superconductor induces a current in it follows from the activation aspect of the electron pairing. That is, while in the case of the normal electron the rotational space is constant with time, in the case of the electron pair the space is sinusoidally varying with time. In normal conduction, electric current is induced if the magnetie flux threading the space of the electrons changes with time. In superconductivity, the electrical ctzrrent is induced since the space of the electrons threading the magnetic flux varies with time. We may eall this ―superinduction,‖ and the relevant current ―activation current.‖
4. The Nonlocality of the Pairing
It has been found that ―the size of the electron pairs is on the order of 104cm and the motion of electrons at different points of the metal shows correlations over distances of this order.‖[8] Richard Feynman points out: ―I don't wish you to imagine that the pairs are really held together very closely like a point particle. As a matter of fact, one of the great difficulties of understanding this phenomenon originally was that that is not the way things are. The electrons which form the pair are really spread over a considerable distance; and the mean distance between pairs is relatively smaller than the size of a single pair. Several pairs are occupying the same space at the same time.‖[9] By any standard of conventional thinking this is rather a strange state of affairs.
From the point of view of the Reciprocal System, however, we see that the two electrons that form the pair are adjacent in time, and not in space, since the electron motion is in the time region as has already been noted. As the location of the particles in space is in no way correlated to their location in time, adjacency in time does not necessarily entail propinquity in space. Therefore, the components of a pair could be spatially separated while contiguous in time. Their maximum separation could be the natural unit of space multiplied by the interregional ratio (nearly 7 x 104 cm).
5. Superconductivity and Magnetic Ordering
As both magnetic ordering and superconductivity are the result of the respective motions entering the time region, it would be of interest to examine whether and how they affect each other. In the ferromagnetic arrangement of the directions of all the atomic dipoles are mutually parallel. Sueh a state of ordering precludes the electron pair formation required in superconductivity since the spins of the electrons are disposed to orient parallel to each other. As such, we can predict that superconductivity and ferromagnetism cannot coexist. On the other hand, in the antiferromagnetic ordering, adjacent magnetic dipoles are oriented antiparallel to each other. Since the rotational space that is the electron will have greater chance of assuming the directions of these dipoles, adjacent electrons with opposite spin directions would be readily available for pairing. Consequently, we can conclude that the antiferromagnetic ordering can coexist with or even promote the electron pairing that underlies superconductivity. If this is so, it might lead to the development of high Tc superconducting materials by exploiting the potential of the antiferromagnetic type of structures.
6. Thermodynamical Aspects
The observable relationships among the superconducting and the normal states follow directly from the quadratic nature of the relationship between the corresponding quantities of the time region and the outside region [10].
6.1 Specific Heat Relations
Quoting Larson: ―:.. the relation between temperature and energy depends on the charaoteristics of the transmission process. Radiation originates threedimensionally in the time region, and rnakes contact onedimensionally in the outside region. It is thus fourdimensional, while temperature is only onedimensional. We thus find that the energy of radiation is proportional to the fourth power of the temperature. Erad = K * T4 . ‖[11] We have seen earlier that the phenomenon of birotation of the electron pair is identical to that of the birotation of photons (except for the absence of the rotational base in the latter). Consequently, the time region energy associated with the electron pairs is proportional to the fourth power of the temperature. Therefore, considering unit volume
of the material, the expression for the thermal energy in the superconducting state can be written as Es=Ks*T4 (1)
where Kg is a constant and suffix s denotes the supercondueting state. Differentiating this equation one gets the expression for the specific heat in the superconducting state, Cs=4*Ks*T4 (2)
This cubic relationship is confirmed experimerr tally. Continuing the quotation from Larson: ―The thermal motion originating inside unit distance is likewise fourdimensional in the energy transmission process. However, this motion is not transmitted directly though the thermal oscillation is identical with the oscillation of the photon, it differs in that its direction is collinear with the progression of the natural reference system rather than perpendicular to it. ―The transmission is a contact process ... subject to the general interregional relation previously explained. Instead of E=KT4, as in radiation, the thermal motion is E² = K‘T4,‖[12] that is, En=Kn*T (3)
where Kn is a constant and sufiix n denotes the normal state. This, of course, gives the linear relationship between the normal specific heat Cn, and temperature that Larson uses in his calculations. [12] Cn=2*Kn*T (4)
We know that the entropy of both the states, Sn and Ss, must be equal both at Tc and at 0 kelvin (by the third law of thermodynamics). Using dS = dE/T, we have from Eqs. (1) and (3), T Ss(T)= 0 T Sn = 0 At T = Tc we have Ss(Tc) = Sn(Tc) which gives 3 * Kn Ks = ——— 2 * T²c Using Eqs. (2), (4) and (7), we can now find that at the transition the excess specific heat is given by 2*Kn*dt=2*Kn*T (6) T4*Ks*T²*dT=(4/3)*Ks*T³ (5)
Cs  Cn = 6KnTc  2KnTc = 4KnTc = 2Cn The above result is experimentally corroborated.
(8)
6.2 External Magnetic Field
Below the critical temperature Tc superconductivity is quenched by applying an exter nal magnetic field of intensity greater than the critical value Hc. The fourth power and the seoond power relations, Eqs. (1) and (3) respectively, pertaining to the two regions across the boundary lead us to the result (see Appendix) Hc (T) =1Hc (0) T ( Tc ) ²
where Hc(T) is the critical magnetic field that quenches the superconductivity at the temperature T (less than Tc). . This is the wellknown parabolic relation that is especially found to hold good in the case of all the soft (Type 1) superconducting materials. A more rigorous treatment should, of course, take into consideration the probability of existence of some unpaired electrons at temperatures greater than 0 kelvin. The Type II superconducting materials have a mixed state which we cannot consider in a preliminary study such as the present one.
7. Conclusion
The foregoing explanation of supercon ductivity adds one more item that demonstrates the coherence and generality of the Reciprocal System of theory. It has been shown that the apparent reversal of direction, from the point of view of the stationary threedimensional spatial reference system, that takes place when the scalar motion constituting a phenomenon crosses a unit boundary of some sort underlies the explanation of such diverse phenomena as the white dwarfs, quasars, cohesion in solids, sunspots and ferromagnetism. In this present article we extend this explanation to the phenomenon of superconductivity as well. Superconductivity is the result of the electron motion (rotational space) entering the time region and turning into a birotation. The formation of electron pairs, the nonlocality of the pairing, the zero electrical resistance, the expulsion of magnetic field, the abrupt change in the specific heat at the transition, the manner of variation of the critical field with temperature, all of these are shown to follow logically from the theory.
References
1. Dewey B. Larson, Basic Properties of Matter, Intl. Soc. Unified Sc., Utah, U.S.A., 1983, p.104
ON THE NATURE OF ROTATION AND BIROTATION
In an earlier paper entitled ‗The Law of Conservation of Direction‘1 I have introduced the concept of birotation. I discussed there the difficulties with Larson's account of the intrinsic nature of photon and shown how birotation underlies the photon structure. Thomas Kirk, in a communication² , refers to this paper and raises two questions. The present article is writen as a response to these, realizing that more detailed explanations are necessary than were given earlier, in view of the maiden nature of our explorations of the Reciprocal System.
The Two Intrinsic Traits of Vector Space
I shall begin by answering Kirk‘s first question: ―How does the simple displacement from the natural progression become a rotational motion, or if a photon is rotational, what phenomenon is the negative of the outward progression?‖ I have anticipated this category of difficulty that a reader might feel and included in my exposition a discussion explaining the nature and primacy of rotation (see pp. 34 of ref.(1]). The real difficulty here stems from the tacit assumption made by the questioner that the only way a primary displacement from the spacetime progression can manifest is as a uniformly increasing linear magnitude with constant direction (that is , translation). Quoting Larson: ―The only inherent property of a scalar motion is its positive or negative magnitude, and the representation of that magnitude in the spatial reference system is subject to change in accordance with the conditions prevailing in the environment. The same scalar motion can be either translational, rotational, vibrational, or a rotational vibration ... ‖³ What distinguishes them is the coupling to the reference system and this changes according to the circumstances. I emphasized that space has two intrinsic traitstranslational and rotational. In translation we have uniform and continuous change of linear magnitude with constant direction, whereas in rotation we have uniform and continuous change of direction with constant linear magnitude. Both are equally possible. Moreover, ―...a constant and uniform change of position or direction (my italics) is just as permanent and just as selfsustaining as a condition of rest.‖4 Letting the linear , magnitude be x and the angular magnitude , we can succintly describe the representation of a unit of scalar motion in the conventional spatial reference system as
[ ] [] [ ]
= or d /dt 1 0 where t denotes time. The first represents rotational space while the second translational space.
dx/dt
0
1
If space were not to have the rotational trait it would not have had the solidity or the ‗volumeness‘ aspect. For example, if we were to have a ‗cube‘ of side 2 units in such a ‗space‘ of three dimensions, its total magnitude would be 6 linear units. It cannot have the volumetric aspect of 8 volume units. As such, it should be clear that its angularity nature is as fundamental as its linearity nature. The difficulty of imagining the existence of rotational motion without it being the rotation of something is just like the difficulty of Imagining the existence of motion without it being the motion of something. Both these difficulties originate from our long — standing habit of regarding matter as primary in this physical universe and treating motion only as a predicate of matter. The moment we realize that the most primary entity of the universe of motion is motion, both these difficulties should dissolve together. There is another reason why it might be difficult for some people to see the equal primacy of the rotational aspect of space as against its translational aspect. Larson points out5 that presentday science does not recognize the existence of any motions that cannot be represented in the conventional reference system. This reference frame is deficient in more than one way. While some of the true characteristics of scalar motions cannot be represented in the conventional threedimensional spatial reference system at all, some others could be represented only with the help of some auxiliary devices. ―Rotational motion, for instance, is represented in the spatial reference system with the aid of an auxiliary quantity, the number of revolutions. Ordinary vibrational motion can be accurately defined only by a similar expedient.‖6 With the benefit of the above explanations it can now be seen that the genesis of a simple harmonic motion from uniform motion is only possible through rotation. Since the emergence of a single rotation from the scalar motion does not conserve angular momentum, the only logical alternative for the manifestation of the simple harmonic motion is the birotation delineated in my paper.1 To those who have been following the development so far it might be apparent by now that the Law of Conservation of Linear Momentum, the Law of Conservation of Angular Momentum, and Newton‘s Third Law of Motionare all corollaries of the Law of Conservation of Direction. In a separate paper I am presenting several experimental facts that demonstrate in a direct manner the existence of birotation in photons. I have already alluded1 to the experimental determination of the angular momenta of photons. This work7 was brought to my attention by Edwin Navarro. Kirk proposes that the photon comprises of an inward linear displacement in a second scalar dimension and that the linear inward unit is rotationally distributed. But this model is inadmissible for two reasons. Firstly, a rotationally distributed linear motion does not give rise to angular momentum. Secondly, the way in which Kirk envisages the displacement to manifest is not valid (for reasons I have given in a separate communication).
The Scalar Direction of Rotation
The answer to the latter part of Kirk's question, ‖ ...if a photon is rotational, what phenomenon is the negative of the outward progression?‖ also emerges from what has been said above about the deficiencies of the conventional reference system. See for
example, how it becomes necessary to introduce the concept of positive and negative reference points to distinguish between the inward/outward scalar directions of a motion, since the representation in the conventional reference system cannot distinguish between them, and same vectorial direction may represent both depending on the situation.8 To ask for ‗the negative of the outward progression‘ in connection with rotational motion would be absurd if we mean by ‗progression‘ a linear motion. However, if we remember that the term ‗progression‘ is used to connote ‗continuing motion,‘ and as the scalar motion is basically a magnitude, its scalar direction in the case of rotation can be represented by clockwise (CW) or counterclockwise (CCW) sense of the rotation. Since this is a matter of the coupling to the conventional reference system it is purely contingent on the circumstances prevailing. For example, the two counterrotations, + and  , of a photon are both inward (scalar). We may attempt to understand this seeming enigma by considering the analogous case of linear translation. In order to ~ represent a linear movement we require a reference point and a moving point. In f ig.l we depict a bivector by two points A and B, moving uniformly toward a reference point R (with velocities  v and + v respectively). Now, in order to represent a rotational movement we require a reference direction and a moving (that is, changing) direction. In fig.2 we depict a birotation by two directions OE and OF, rotating uniformly toward a fixed direction, OD (with angular speeds  and + respectively).
Figure 1: Inward Bivector
Figure 2: Inward Birotation
While the decreasing lengths AR and BR represent inward motion in the translational situation, the decreasing angles EOD and FOD represent inward motion in the rotational situation. It is important to understand that what constitutes an inward motion in rotation is the decrease in this angle and not always its CW or CCW sense as viewed by us. In this particular example we see that both the CW and the CCW rotations happen to be representing inward motion, as the corresponding angles are decreasing. Moreover, just like the possibility that the bivectorial motion may have additional motion components superimposed on it, it is possible that the birotation that we are considering may have additional rotational motion components. Suppose that an additional rotation of + 2 is superimposed. Then in the new situation we see both OE and OF rotating in the same (CCW) sense (at angular velocities + and + 3 respectively). Now one might argue that when OF eventually coincides with OD and continues to rotate, the inward rotation would have to become outward as the angular distance between OF and OD then goes on increasing. But as already pointed out, since the
conventional reference system cannot represent rotation directly, we cannot distinguish between an angular position of ° from that of + 360°, or from that of  360°. Under these circumstances it can be seen that the continued rotation of OF past OD could be in the same scalar direction (inward) despite the fact that the angle represented in the conventional reference system seems to increase. Suppose that the angle FOD is °. For all that we know it could also be +360° , +720° or +360n degrees, where n could be as large an integer as we please. With . this latter possibility, we can easily see that the rotation of OF may continue in the same sense with its angular distance from the fixed direction decreasing continuously and indefinitely, thereby retaining its inward character.
The HF versus LF Photons
The intrinsic speed of a photon (that is, its frequency) could be less than 1/l, say 1/n, or greater than 1/1, say n/1. The former are referred to as the LF (low frequency) photons while the latter as the HF (high frequency) photons. Some students tended to call the HF photons the ‗cosmic photons,‘ and regarded them as not being within the purview of the material sector or the conventional reference system. They presume that neither the unit frequency nor the HF is observable. This is a serious mistake commonly committed by many a student of the Reciprocal System. Larson says: ―When considered merely as vibrating units, there is no distinction between one photon and another except in the speed of vibration, or frequency. The unit level, where speed 1/n changes to n/1 cannot be identified in any directly observable way."9 Subsequent research enables him to identify this unit level. ―Inasmuch as the natural unit of vibrational motion is a half cycle, the cycle is a double unit. The wavelength corresponding to unit speed is therefore two natural units of distance, or 9.118 x 106 cm. The distribution over 128 positions increases the effective distance to 1.167 x 103 cm. This, then, is the effective boundary between motion in space and motion in time, as observed in the material sector.‖10 From this the natural unit of frequency, which demarcates the LF from the HF, turns out be 2.569 x 10 Hz. This should make abundantly clear that, as a matter of actual fact, both LF and HF vibrations are observable either from the material sector or from the cosmic sector. Probably what throws the student off course in this connection is the general statement of the fact that a speed greater than unity (the speed of light) cannot be represented as motion in space with reference to the conventional reference system. The catch here is that this is true of translational motion in space. The situation, however, is different in the case of rotation, since the conventional reference system cannot represent rotation accurately. We, for example, not only. Can observe a rotational time displacement (like a material particle) but also a rotational space displacement (like a cosmic particle as in the cosmic rays). The following additional explanation should make it clear. All independent motion (as against the ficticious motion of the spacetime progression) has to be inward in scalar direction. In the case of the LF photon the vibrational speed being a time displacement (speed 1/n), the motion is inward in space. On the other hand, in the case of the HF photon the vibrational speed being a space displacement (speed n/1), the motion is inward in time, which is tantamount to outward in space. As far as rotation in space Is concerned, we have already seen that the conventional reference
system cannot distinguish whether an angle is increasing from ° or is decreasing from an indefinitely large angle + 360n. This fact renders the representation of both the LF and the HF vibrations (that is, the corresponding birotations) in the conventional reference system possible. The same fact also makes it impossible to observationally distinguish between these two types of vibration.
Mechanism of Circular Polarization
I shall now turn to Kirk's second question . He enquires: ―How does a phenomenon which is compound rotation exist after half of its component rotation is removed as in the postulated polarization? How is this the same phenomenon, a photon?‖ This Is simple: it can, occur In two different ways. Let us represent the photon birotation by P(+ w, w), where + w and  w are the two rotational component speeds. On entering the polarizing medium let it encounter a rotation R(+ w,+ w) pertaining to a particle. The result would be the replacement of the w component of the photon as shown below. P(+ w, w) + R(+ w,+ w) ~ P(+ w,( w,+ w),+ w) = P(+ w,+ w) It must be understood that the rotation pair inside the inner parentheses, ( w,+ w), reduces to zero since the interaction here is vectorial. This produces the circularly polarized photon P(+ w,+ w). The disappearance of the rotation R(+ w,+ w) in the medium is tantamount to the production of net angular momentum. Alternatively, the incoming photon P(+ , ) might encounter an existing birotation B(,+ ) in the atomic system, instead of a rotation R as above. The result would be P(+ , ) + B( ,+ ) P(+ ,+ ) + R( , )
If we remember that the net angular momentum associated with a birotation is zero, we can at once see that the creation of R( , ) produces an angular momentum that is identical in effect to the destruction of R(+w,+w). In either case the net result would be the circular polarization of the photon in the CCW sense and the production of net angular momentum in the CW sense. It must be pointed out that the actual situation of the interaction between two rotations in the time region is much more diverse than is depicted above. This stems from several factors, which may be summarized as follows: (i) Each rotation could be either inward (as in the case of independent motion) or outward (as in the case of an outward component of a compound motion with net inward direction). (ii) The conventional reference system is insensitive with regard to the fixed reference direction insofar as it cannot distinguish between whether an angle is increasing from 0° or is decreasing from an indefinitely large initial angle. Consequently, both inward and outward scalar motions could be represented either as CW or as CCW. (iii) The conventional reference system is subject to the limitation that it can differentiate not more than 360° of angle. Consequently there is an imputed cyclicity and a ‗phase‘ associated with each representation.
Schematic representations of the several possible cases are shown in fig.3. We depict the two rotational components of the photon birotation (P + and P ) by two arrows drawn below the horizontal line pointing inward toward zero, respectively from  to + values. It is taken that the arrow pointing from left to right represents CW rotation and its reverse the CCW. ‗B‘ stands for birotation and ‗R‘ for rotation and both are drawn above the horizontal line to differentiate them from the components of P. On the left hand side we have indicated the phase difference between the simple harmonic motion of the photon P and that of the interacting motion B or R by 0° (in phase) or 180° (phase opposition). The result of the interaction is mentioned on the right hand side of each diagram; ±L indicating the ‗, angular momentum created in the medium due to the circular polarization of the photon. In cases (a) through (d), it must be understood that when the phase difference is 0°, P + or P  interacts with that component of B which is situated on the same side of the ± to 0 range as itself, whereas for 180° it interacts with the B component that is situated on the opposite side.
Figure 3 Schematic diagrams of interactions of rotation
Conclusions
The Paper basically attempts at elucidating the nature of rotation in the context of the Reciprocal System, and correcting some likely minsconception. Some of the important conclusions are summarized as follows: 1) It is emphasized that rotational motion is as primary as linear motion and that the simple harmonic motion (which is apparently an accelerated motion) inherent in photons is uniform birotation. 2) The inability of the conventional reference system to represent rotation completely and correctly results in a failure to distinguish between the inward and outward scalar directions of a rotational representation, and renders both the LF and the HF vibrations observable in the reference system. 3) The circular polarization of photons is the result of interaction with existing rotation/birotation in the medium and is accompanied by angular momentum.
References
1. K. V. K. Nehru, ‗The Law of Conservation of Direction,‘ Reciprocity, XVIII (3), Autumn 1989, pp. 36 2. Thomas Kirk, Reader's Forum, Reciprocity, XIX (2), Summer 1990 . PP~ 2021 3. D. , B. Larson, Basic Properties of Matter, Intl. Soc. of Unified Soc ., Utah, U. S. A., 1988, p. 280 4. Ibid., p. 135 5. Ibid., p. 139
6. Ibid., p. 152 7. R. A. Beth, ‗Mechanical Detection and Measurement of the Angular Momentum of Light,‘ Physical Review, Vol. 50, July 15, 1936, pp. 115125 8. D. B. Larson, Basic Properties of Matter, op. cit., p. 151 9. D. B. Larson, Nothing but Motion, North Pacific Pub., Portland, Or., U. S. A., 1979, p. 53 10. D. B. Larson, The Universe of Motion, North Pacific Pub., 1984, p. 202 .
THE PHOTON AS BIROTATION
Introduction
In an earlier paper1, I have discussed some of the conditions under which a scalar motion manifests in the conventional spatial reference system, and shown that the simple harmonic motion (SHM) of the photon is really a birotation. While it is clear that a SHM underlies the photon from the phenomena of interference and diffraction, the genesis of SHM, given only uniform speed (as in scalar motion), is not possible except through rotation. In a subsequent paper², I have elaborated on the characteristics of rotation and birotation, and shown how they result in observed phenomena, like circular polarization and angular momentum of photons. In the present paper, several other characteristics of the photon phenomena that demonstrate, directly or otherwise, that the photon is basically a birotation are considered.
The Angular Momentum of Photons
We have seenl that the photon is comprised of two equal and opposite rotations about an axis, with the axis being, normally, in the direction of translation of the photon. The total energy, E, of the photon is the sum of the energy of translation, T, and the internal energy of rotation, R. In the absence of any biasing factor, one can see that E is equally partitioned into T and R. Let m apparent mass of each component of the photon I moment of inertia of each component of the photon ± angular velocities of either component h Planck's constant, h, divided by 2 wavelength of the photon v frequency of the photon = c the speed of light = v Then T=R=½E= ½ h1 Considering both component rotations: T=2(½ m c²)= ½ h1 or m=h1 /2 c² (1) /2
(2)
R=2(½ ²)=½ h1 or I = h1/2
(3)
Turning now to angular momentum, l, of each component rotation, we obtain using Equation(3) l=I = ±½ h1 (4)
The ± sign occurs since w could be ±. The angular momentum of the photon itself works out to be L = ±h1 or 0 (5)
since the two component rotations could either be parallel (l+l or l l) or antiparallel (11). It might be noted that L is independent of , and turns out to be the same for photons of all frequencies. This agrees with experimental observations.
The Doppler Shift
R. A. Waldron³ extends the above analysis to the calculation of Doppler shifts. Suppose a photon of frequency vo was emitted by a source that is stationary with respect to the observer, then Eo = h vo = T+R = m c² + m c² = 2 m c² since T = R. However, if the observer is approaching the source with a velocity v, then the translational energy would be 2 [½ m (c + v)²] instead of 2 (½ m c²), while the rotational energy remains unchanged at I ² = mc². The measuring apparatus absorbs this energy; but this cannot be distinguished from the effect of absorbing a photon of frequency v such that E = hv = m (c+v)² + m c² = 2 m c² (1 + v/c + ½ v²/c²) Substituting from Equation (6) in the above and writing v/c = , we have v/vo = 1 + +½ 2 (7) (6)
Changing frequencies to wavelengths, we have the Doppler shift formula / o=(1+ +½ 2)1 = 1 + ½ ²  ¼ 4 +... (8)
which agrees well with the orthodox Doppler formula / o=
{ }
1+
1
½ (9)
=1 + ½ ² ½ ³+ ³/8 4... (since is usually small, terms of order greater than 2 could be ignored).
Dispersion In ordinary refraction, a light beam incident on a medium at an angle i, changes direction and gets refracted at an angle r in the medium. This change in direction could be shown as being due to the reduction in the speed of light from c to v in the medium, and that the following relation holds good: sin i/sin r=c/v=n (10)
This ratio n is called the index of refraction. The fall in speed is, of course, due to the additional time involved in the net time displacement of the material medium through which the photon traverses. At this juncture we would also like to note that, for a given substance, the refractive index n increases as a power function of the frequency of light, which implies that the fall in speed on entering the medium is more for higher frequencies. This, of course, results in the phenomenon of dispersion, which is defined as the change in speed of light in a medium that is engendered by a change in wavelength or frequency of the light. Larson has computed the refractive index and the dispersion coefficient of several substances from the first principles of the Reciprocal System.4 The relation between the refractive index n of a medium and the frequency v could be derived from the theory we have been developing as follows. On entering the medium, the photon is located in the time displacement of the atom, instead of the space unit of the outward progression; rather, it is the atom, which has been moving inward in space, enters the photon, the latter being stationary with regard to the natural reference system. Consequent to this, the datum (initial) level from which the photon's apparent mass is reckoned gets altered. It might be noticed that we have been calling m the apparent mass of the photon. Since mass is threedimensional inverse speed, whereas the photon is only a onedimensional (rotational) speed, the photon does not have a true mass. However, it does have intrinsic angular momentum, since the photon is rotation per se, and this manifests as an apparent mass, given by m=I ²/c² (11)
We may truly call it ―spin mass.‖ The reason why the translational energy of the photon equals its rotational energy (Equation (1)) should now be obvious,
T=mc²=(I ²/c²)c²=I ²=R The apparent mass of the photon is entirely spin mass. Let 1, be the rotational speed of the atom of the medium. The reference level for the rotational energy of the photon on entering the atom gets changed since it must now be reckoned from the level of the atomic rotation, and not that of free space. Consequently, the change in rotational energy could be expressed as: I ²I 1² (12) The introduction of the new datum level for rotation has, of course, a corresponding effect of changing the datum level of the spin mass. This we express by writing (using Equation (11)): m1=I 1²/c² where m, is the mass equivalent of the datum shift of rotation. In the general situation, a unit of the apparent mass of the photon need not be equal in (natural) magnitude to a unit of the apparent mass pertaining to atomic rotation, since the latter has a different reference point and is contingent on the chemical composition and the crystal structure. This engenders a scale difference between the two. Let this scale factor be f. Then ml units of the apparent mass from the point of view of the atomic rotational system are equivalent to f.m, units from the point of view of the photon rotational system. Thus, the apparent mass of the photon, as reckoned from the atomic system in which it is now located, turns out to be: mf m (14) (13)
With the new initial levels in the medium, the speed of propagation readjusts itself such that the rotational and the translational energies of the photon become once again equal, with reference to these new initial levels. Thus: I 2I 12=(mfm1)v2 (15) where v is the speed of light in the medium. Substituting from Equations (11) and (13), and dividing throughout by I: ²  ²1 = ( ²  f ²1) v²/ c² or c²/v²=( ²f ²1)/( ² ²1) = 1 + ((1  f ²1) / ( ²  ²1) (16)
Let a=1/(f1)and b=4 ²a/w²1 Since c/v = n, we finally arrive at
(17)
n²=1+1/(abv²)
(18)
It might be noted that the relation derived from the conventional electromagnetic theorys is identical to this. Comparison with data shows that the equation is quite accurate (correlation coefficient > 0.999). In the case where there exists more than one rotation 1 in the medium, we proceed as follows. Let n1 be the refractive index calculated on the basis of a single atomic rotation 1 (as though it exists alone) and let there be r such different rotations. It can be seen that the overall refractive index no is the R.M.S. (root mean square) value of nl. In other words r n²o= 1=1 where pl is the proportion of each r p1=1 1=1 This is because the quantity n² (= c²/v²), being the square of the inverse speed in natural units, actually represents the time region equivalent of energy (remembering the second power relation pertaining to the time region). Consequently, Equation (19) gives simply the average time region energy, so that no becomes the effective refractive index. Anomalous Dispersion Any complete theory of dispersion must also account for the socalled anomalous dispersion. Normally, the refractive index increases with an increase in frequency, but beyond some sufficiently high frequency, it is found that the refractive index becomes abnormally low. A prism made of an alcoholic solution of fuchsine (an analine dye), for example, refracts violet light less than red, although red, orange, and yellow appear in the normal order. An examination of Equation 18 reveals that this would indeed be the case when the frequency v is very near the value (a+ 1 )/b, but greater than it. Binfringence This is the phenomenon of double refiraction and is exhibited by optically anisotropic crystalline substances, some examples being Icelandic spar, quartz, ice, tourmaline, apatite, borax, mica, topaz, etc. If a beam of light is made to pass through such a substance, it has been found that it gives rise to two beams, one of which corresponds to the single beam which would have been transmitted, had a substance like glass been used. This beam is called the ordinary (O) beam; the other, the extraordinary (E) beam. Now in ordinary refraction, n is found to be constant for all incident angles. This is true of the O beam in the phenomenon of birefringence. But the E beam is found to vary with (20)
1
p1 n²1
(19)
among the total number of rotations, such that
direction, thus implying that the speed of the E beam is dependent on direction. In some crystals, the E beam travels faster, and in some others, slower than the O beam. Moreover it is also observed that the O and E beams are plane polarized, with their planes of vibration being perpendicular to each other. This behavior could readily be understood if we remember the birotational basis of the photon. If a certain quantity of rotational motion in the form of a birotation ( ,+ ) occurs in the crystal structure such that its axis is parallel to the E beam, and phase coincident with that of the photons of the E beam, then the component angular speeds, and + of the photon get changed such that they become ( + ) and ( + ). This apparent increase in frequency (relative to the medium) brings forth a corresponding fall in the translational speed, as in dispersion, causing the E beam to travel slower than the O beam. In the case that the operating birotation B compounds with the photon component speeds as ( a) and ( a), the result would be that the E beam travels faster than the O beam. It might be noted, in passing, that the supervening birotation B does not interact with the O beam as their respective planes of vibration do not coincide. It must be understood that the altered value of the E beam frequency within the medium is an effect of the change of the initial (datum) level (of rotation), and not an absolute change in the magnitude of . Consequently, on emerging from the medium, the photon frequency shows up as ± only. Rotary Polarization Optically Active Substances There is a class of optically active substances which have the property of rotating the plane of vibration of light as it traverses them. Some rotate the plane of vibration to the left, and others to the right, and are consequently classified as laevorotatory and dextrorotatory, respectively. It has been found that the angle of rotation is proportional to the thickness traversed, and also to the first approximation of the square of the frequency. The explanation of the phenomenon comes out naturally from the birotational nature of the photon. Let, as before,  and + be the angular speeds of the two components of the photon. As it traverses this type of substance, it encounters a rotation, say R(+ ,+ ), pertaining to the molecules, and the component rotations get modified as (  ) and ( + ). This decrease and increase in speed magnitudes of the two rotational components respectively engender corresponding changes in the speeds of propagation, as in dispersion. This phenomenon may aptly be called circular birefringence. This produces a phase difference between the two rotational components of the photon which is proportional to the thickness. The end result is the rotation of the plane of vibration of the photon. From the theory we have been developing, the angle of rotation of the vibrational plane can easily be worked out as follows. Let (  ) =  l and ( + ) = w². If t is the thickness of the medium, the time taken by the component w1 to traverse it is
1
=t/v1=(t/c)n1
(21)
where vl and n, are the speeds of propagation, and the refractive index, respectively, of the component. Thus, the angle turned by this component during time T1 is
1
=
1
1
= (t/c)(n1 1)
²
(22) of the photon, the net angle turned through (23)
Considering similarly the other component by the vibration plane will be =( 2since
1 1
)/2 =½(t/c)(n² ²  n1 1)
²
and
are in opposite senses.
Changing from w to v and adopting Equation (18) for n and expanding the right hand side in series, we arrive at the following result = ½ (t/c) (A + Bv2 + Cv4 + ...) (24)
where the constants A, B, C, etc., are dependent on the material, and are functions of , and the powers of v are all even. Both the dependence on t and v, of are very accurately represented by Equation (24) as may be checked from observational values. The parity of this rotatory polarization would be opposite to that of the above if the encountered rotation in the medium is R( , ), instead of R(+ ,+ ). In this case, the photon component rotations would be respectively ( + ) and (  ). It should also be noted that if the beam is reversed the original rotation (of the vibration plane) is annulled. Rotation by Magnetic Field It is also known that when some substancesmany solids, liquids, and gasestraversed by a beam of plane polarized light are placed in a strong magnetic field, a rotation of the vibration plane occurs. The angle of rotation is found to be proporaonal to the strength of the magnetic field, and also the length of travel. This is what is to be expected, since we lmow that the magnetic field is a twodimensional rotational vibration. As explained earlier, this superimposed rotation speeds up one component of the photon birotation, and slows down the other, resulting in the phase difference and consequent rotation of the vibration plane. The dependence on the field strength and the path length are likewise understandable. But what is not so readily apparent, is the result that if the beam is reversed, keeping the field direction the same, the sense of the rotation (of the vibration plane) will be opposite to the previous. So much so, that if a beam is reflected back and forth along the lines of force, the amount of rotation should be greater for the greater the number of reversals. This, of course, is exactly established experimentally. Direct Measurement of the Photon‘s Angular Momentum
Elsewhere,¹ I had already mentioned how the angular momentum of photons could be directly measured. Richard Beth6 had devised an ingenious experimental setup that directly detected and measured the effect. The heart of his apparatus consists of a circular half wave plate of quartz, hung by a fine filament and free to rotate. Beth contrives to pass a circularly polarized light beam through this plate twice, such that each time the beam passes, its circular polarization changes from CW to CCW, and thereby imparts to the disk, four times the angular momentum which would otherwise have been given, were the beam merely to be absorbed. Avoiding absorption also eliminates the problem of heating and pressure. The Zeeman Effect When a light source is placed in a magnetic field, a single spectral line is replaced by a number of others. This separation of the spectral lines resulting from the action of a magnetic field on the source is called the Zeeman Effect. In the socalled normal Zeeman effect, when the direction of the light beam is perpendicular to the magnetic lines of force, instead of one spectral line, three are found; one with a wavelength the same as when the field is absent, a second with a wavelength slightly greater, and a third with a wavelength slightly less than the first. It is also found that all the three wavelengths are planepolarized, the vibration plane of the first line being along the lines of force, and that of the other two at rightangles to this direction. This is called the transverse Zeeman Effect. On the other hand, if the direction of the field lines is parallel to the beam direction, we have the longitudinal Zeeman Effect. In this case, the original wavelength is replaced by two, one with a wavelength slightly greater, and the other with a wavelength slightly less than the normal; the beams being circularly polarized in opposite senses. Both these effects can be seen to follow directly from the birotational basis of photons. In Figure 1, the three mutually perpendicular dimensions of space are shown by the lines OX, OY, and OZ. The beam direction is OZ. The direction of the magnetic field is indicated by a thick arrow. The three possible orientations for the birotation in the system are shown by B1, B2, and B3. In Figure 1(a), the field direction is along OY (being perpendicular to OZ). One or the other of these three birotations can emit photons with corresponding rotational components. The magnetic field has two effects on the birotations. Firstly, since the magnetic motion is rotational, the two components of the birotation with the axis parallel to the field direction alter their speeds of rotation, ± , one component speeding up and the other slowing down. In Figure 1 (a) this happens to B 1. Because of this, these two circular motions of B1 appear as vibrations of two different frequencies with their plane of vibration perpendicular to the field direction. Secondly, in the case of the two birotations B2 and B3, the plane of vibration will be parallel to the field direction. Thus, the vibration emitted from these will be along ab or cd (Figure 1 (a)); in either case, the vibration appears planepolarized in the direction of the field and its frequency, , is unaltered. In Figure I (b), we have the field direction coincident with OZ. The first result is the change in the speeds of the components of B1, which, therefore, emit two circularly polarized photons, one in the CW direction, and the other in the CCW direction, with the
respective frequencies slightly less and slightly more than w. Since the vibration direction in the case of B2 and B3 (ab and cd in Figure 1 (b)) is along the longitudinal direction OZ, no beam gets emitted in this direction. We therefore do not have a spectral line with the original frequency, , in this case. Summary We have endeavored to show that deduction from the postulates of the Reciprocal System leads one to the concept that the simple harmonic motion of the photon is really a birotation. In fact, the apparent mass of a photon is shown to arise from its angular momentum. A complete theory of dispersion of light has been developed. Other phenomena considered to demonstrate the birotational nature of the photon were the Doppler shift, double refraction, rotatory polarization, circular polarization, and the Zeeman Effects.
References 1. Nehru, K.V K., The Law of Conservation of Direction, Reciprocity XVIII (3), (Autumn, 1989), pp. 36. 2. Nehru, K.V K., On the Nature of Rotation and Birotation, Reciprocity XX (1), (Spring, 1991), pp. 812. 3. Waldron, R. A., The Spinning Photon, Speculations in Science and Technology, Volume 5, Number 2, (1983), pp. 171181. 4. Larson, D. B., The Structure of the Physical Universe, (North Pacific Publishers, Portland, OR, 1959), pp. 125131. 5. Robertson, J. K., Introduction to Optics, (Affiliated EastWest Press, New Delhi, India, 1965), p. 307. 6. Beth, R. A., Mechanical Detection and Measurement of the Angular Momentum of Light, Physical Review, Volume 50 (July, 15, 1936), pp. 115125.
(a) The Transverse Effect
(b) the Longitudinal Effect Figure 1: The Normal Zeeman Effect
BIROTATION AND DOUBTING THOMAS
This is a response to Thomas Kirk‘s article in Reciprocity, XX (3), p. 14. In the course of the study of the Reciprocal System we find that there is a class of persons who are not merely intelligent but very intelligent — but unfortunately are not intelligent enough. Most of us, perhaps all of us, belong to this category, the average scientist included. Let me explain. It must be recognized that, over ages of tradition and habit, the human mind, in its endeavor to understand the universe, develops what may be termed a ‗frame of mind,‘ which is really a viewpoint. Every concept, old or new, is reckoned or interpreted from the background of this frame of mind. Anything that does not fit into the existing frame is summarily rejected; it cannot be felt as understood. The mind complains that ‗it cannot swallow it.‘
Paradigm Shifts
In the course of the development of science any new idea or concept that may be proffered would be usually greeted with great enthusiasm and praise if that idea or concept is in conformity with the popular, prevailing frame of mind. On the other hand, once in a while there comes some scientific development which is not merely a new concept but involves a new frame of thinking. Suffice it to cite the examples of the Copernican revolution and Planck‘s discovery of quanta. Such a development, though it marks real breakthrough and progress, is never readily accepted by the intelligentsia of the time. They commit the mistake of trying to understand the new concepts from the background of the previous frame of thinking whereas, in reality, they must be evaluated from the new frame engendered by the development. The result, of course, would seem to be absurd or contradictory. In the present case, the viewpoint we have all been addicted to for the past millennia is the one that is germane to the concept of a universe of matter, namely, the inveterate habit of positing every thing as existing in a framework of space and time. We may call this the viewpoint of Container Space. With the advent of the Reciprocal System this viewpoint could be seen to be no more valid. Space and time, according to the Reciprocal System, happen to be the content of the physical universe. The majority of difficulties in understanding my presentation or Larson‘s can be seen to stem from the inability to relinquish the slavish allegiance to the Cartesian reference frame, namely, the container space, even when the new theory demands it. We shall refer to this as the Fallacy of the Incongruous Viewpoints.
Direction of Rotation
Larson has shown that space in general is not limited to the spatial aspect of linear motion, which alone could be correctly represented in the threedimensional spatial reference system. He points out that the reference system is deficient in more than one way. It cannot, for example, represent truly the spatial aspect of rotational motion.[l,2] The rotational space of the electron is such, for instance.[3]
Some experience difficulty in following the nature of rotation. Since a rotating line segment sweeps a disk they imagine that (i) rotation is twodimensional, and (ii) that in rotation the direction is changing continuously and hence it cannot be scalar. In item (i) there is confusion between the dimensions of space and the dimensions of motion, and they don't realize that onedimensional rotation utilizes two dimensions of extension space. A quantity is onedimensional if only one magnitude can completely specify it. Insofar as a rotation as above can be so specified by the number of revolutions per unit time, a single magnitude, it is only a onedimensional motion. And it is also scalar if the orientation (in threedimensional space) of its axis of rotation is not specified. From the point of view of motion it is on par with the onedimensional scalar speed given in, say, cm/sec. The direction relevant is the direction of this onedimensional quantity, the number of revolutions per unit time, which, however, cannot be represented in any direct way in the extension space, while the onedimensional quantity, cm/sec, could be so represented. The difficulty experienced in this connection is due to the unconscious, mistaken assumption that the extension space is allcomprehensive and represents rotation truly. Since the fallacy of container space regards every thing to be existing in the extension space and time, it perpetuates the belief that anything not so represented in space and time is unreal, unthinkable or nonexistent. Therefore, one is unable to see that the direction — which deems it scalar or vectorial — in the context of rotation is not the changing direction of its radius, but its changed sense of rotation. As Larson amply points out[2], rotation can be represented in the conventional reference system only with the aid of an auxiliary device. For example, using the righthand corkscrew notation we might represent a rotation by a vector of appropriate length pointing in the direction of its axis. Direction, in the context of the onedimensional rotation then becomes the direction of this vector. There is nothing new in this representation. We generally adopt it in common engineering practice to denote angular momenta and torques. We may call it ‗rotational vector.‘ As far as any mathematical operation on the rotational vectors is concerned they can be treated as identical to the ordinary vectors. For example, we can vectorially add two rotational vectors as we do with ordinary vectors, or decompose a rotational vector into components. However, we cannot combine ordinary vectors and rotational vectors in any operation. This is because, while ordinary vectors are correct representations, rotational vectors are artif'icial constructs employed by us to circumvent the limitations of the threedimensional reference frame. Hence the rotational vector deserves a separate name, something like roctor. Their usefulness lies in the fact that within the domain of the rotational vectors we can carry out all the vectorial operations and hence while they are only artificial representations they, nonetheless, correctly represent the interrelations between them. When we said that one could be very intelligent but not intelligent enough, we meant that one is unable to see the limitations of the viewpoint of the extension space and is unable to recognize that he is attempting to view all phenomena, whether they fit this viewpoint or not, only from such a viewpoint. Once this is realized, all the points that have been raised can be understood. A rereading of the articles on birotation without losing the
awareness of this fact might now be able to convey correctly what I meant there about rotation and birotation.
Other Objections
I did not elaborate on my use of the word ‗fictitious‘ in connection with the space time progression because I was only paraphrasing Larson‘s explanation, which follows: ―The sphere generated by the motion of the natural reference system relative to the point of origin has no actual physical significance. It is a fictitious result of relating the natural reference system to an arbitrary fixed system of reference.‖[5] And, ―... the postulates require the existence of real units of motion, units that are similar to the units of motion involved in the progression of the natural reference system, except that they actually exist, rather than being fictitious results of relating motion in an arbitrary reference system. These independent units of motion ...‖[6] If one is really concerned about truth, one makes sincere attempts to follow the author, communicate with him for possible enlightenment, or discuss with others. We all have done that with Larson and with each other. Merely launching into a tirade at the slightest conceptual difficulty does not lead one very far. Patience, perseverance, and if we may point out respectfully, lack of conceit are important. They give the higher intelligence a chance to operate. Of course, in the present instance, it never occurred to me that some reader might miss the obvious and fail to discern from the context that the rotation under consideration is the rotation of the atom and not the rotation that constitutes the atom.
Back to the Bivector
Knowing the difficulty one may experience with the analysis of the nature of rotation, we started our original explanation with linear translational motion.[7] We tried to show how the representation of a scalar in the conventional reference frame would be a bivector and not a vector. This explanation proceeds logically and directlv from Larson‘s treatment of the nature of scalar motion as against vectorial motion.[8] Reading the passage on pp. 3334, Nothing but Motion and then my article on The Law of Conservation of Direction[8] should establish that we are only carrying out Larson‘s development to its logical end, rather than indulging in ‗free inventions‘. The analysis is next extended logically to rotation. Any way we would like to try once more to see if we can be of help. Let us dwell on linear motion since this does not bring the limitation of the reference frame into the picture and is consequently easier to grasp. Now the first thing we would like to emphasize is that the bivector is tantamount to a scalar. Imagine a bivector XAXB as shown in Fig. 1.
Next consider two mutually perpendicular lines making an arbitrary angle a and 90+a respectively with the line AB. Let the two components of the vector XA along these two directions be Xa1 and Xa2 respectively. Similarly Xb1 and Xb2 are the two components of the vector XB along these two directions (Fig. 2).
On crosscombining the components of the vector XA and XB, such that Xa1 is combined with Xb2 and Xb1 with Xa2, we arrive at the resultants XA1 and XB1 as shown in Fig. 3.
Thus the original bivector can be transformed into a new bivector XA1XB 1 whose line of action is at an angle 2a to that of the original. Since the angle chosen, a, is totally arbitrary, this proves that the bivector XAXB is equivalent to any other bivector of the same magnitude extending in any direction (actually, bidrection) in the threedimensional reference frame. Or what comes to the same, the bivector is tantamount to scalar. Thus when the scalar motion is placed in the context of a spatial reference frame it manifests as a bivector, and not as a vector. It might be noted that while all the first order quantities connected with the bivector (like momenta) cancel each other out (like mv and mv), the second order quantities remain additive (like mv2 and m(v)2). All that has been said above the characteristics of a bivector is also true of the birotational vector (or biroctor, if one prefers to call it so). While a rotational speed has a onedimensional magnitude and a rotational direction, and hence is a (rotational) vector, a birotational vector is a pure scalar. Hence if scalar motion manifests in a reference frame as rotation, it would do so as a birotation and not rotation. Manifestation as a rotation would entail the creation of a quantity of angular momentum not existing previously, whereas there is no such need in the case of the birotation. Finally I have produced the proof of the pudding in a Paper entitled ‗Photon as Birotation‘ presented at the 1991 Convention (waiting to be published in Reciprocity), wherein I demonstrated how the manifold phenomena connected with radiation do follow logically from the birotational nature of the photon. The difficulty is shared by all of us who fail to realized that we might be making the mistake of adopting the inappropriate conceptual frame in studying the Reciprocal System. In fact it is fatally easy to slip back into the Fallacy of the Incongruous Viewpoints and not realize it. I have separately made a careful analysis of this and other difficulties we might encounter, in a Paper entitled ‗The Quasar Paradox?‘ sent to Reciprocity for publication.
We must, however, see that discussions like this have done a great service by showing us alternate responses to the Reciprocal System. These latter provide us with valuable insights as to the ways in which an intelligent, wellmeaning scientist might misunderstand discussions of the Reciprocal System and end up passing wrong verdicts.
REFERENCES
1. Dewey B. Larson, ‗The Basic Properties of Matter‘, ISUS, Utah, U.S.A, 1988, p. 139 2. Dewey B. Larson, ‗Nothing but Motion‘, N. P. Pub., Oregon, U.S.A., 1979, pp. 3940 3. Dewey B. Larson, ‗The Basic Properties of Matter‘, op. cit., pp. 102103 4. K.V.K. Nehru, ‗On the Nature of Rotation and Birotation,‘ Reciprocity, XX (1), Spring 1992, pp. 812 5. Dewey B. Larson, ‗Nothing but Motion‘, op. cit., p. 38 6. Ibid., p. 45 7. K.V.K. Nehru, ‗The Conservation of Direction ‘ , XVIII (3), Autumn 1989, pp. 8. Dewey B. Larson, Nothing op. cit., pp. 3334 Law of Reciprocity, 36 but Motion,
THE WAVE MECHANICS IN THE LIGHT OF THE RECIPROCAL SYSTEM
One of the large areas to which the Reciprocal System is yet to be applied in detail is spectroscopy. The need is all the more urgent as vast wealth of empirical data is available here in great detail and a general theory must explain all the aspects. To be sure, this was one of the earlier areas which Larson[1] explored. But he soon found out, he writes, that there were complications too many and too involved that he decided to postpone the investigation until more basic ground was developed by studying other areas. Coupled with this is also the fact that the calculation of the properties of elements like the lanthanides is still beyond the scope of the Reciprocal System as developed to date.[2] The question of the appropriateness of the Periodic Table as given by Larson is still open.[25] Under these circumstances it is certain that there is lot more to be done toward enlarging the application of the Reciprocal System to the intrinsic structure of the atom. Perhaps it is time to break new ground in the exploration of the mechanics of the Time Region, the region inside unit space. Breaking new ground involves some fresh thinking and leaving no stone unturned. In this context, it may be desirable to examine, once again, such a successful theory as the Wave Mechanics in the light of our existing knowledge of the Reciprocal System.
The Fallacies of the Wave Mechanics
The fundamental starting point of the Wave Mechanics is the correlation, which Louis de Broglie advanced originally, of a wave with a moving particle. Like every wave has a corpuscular aspect as shown by Planck's analysis of the blackbody radiation, the photoelectric effect and the Compton effect (the scattering of photons by particles), it is hypothesized that every particle has a wave aspect. Since the characteristics of waves and particles are mutually exclusive in many ways, this concept of associating a wave with a particle had been beset from its inception with a contradiction that had been euphemized by stating that the two are "complementary" aspects. This led to many an epistemological difficulty. The quantum theorists concluded that the phenomena (particles) inside an atom are not localized in physical space, that the electron in the atom does not exist in an objectively real sense, that it is but a mathematical symbol, and that the world is not intrinsically reasonable or understandable in the realm of the very little. One may refer to The Case against the Nuclear Atom[6] by Larson for a critical appraisal. While this is so, it must be noted that the Wave Mechanics was successful in explaining the vast wealth of the spectroscopic data. The several quantum numbers, n, l, m, etc. come out in natural way in the theory. Even the "selection rules" that govern the transitions from one energy state to another could be derived. The fine and the hyperfine structures of the spectra, the breadth and intensity of the lines, the effects of electric and magnetic forces on the spectra could all be derived with great accuracy. In addition, it predicts many nonclassical phenomena, such as the tunneling through potential barriers or the phenomena connected with the phase, which found experimental verification. Thus
we can see that the mathematical success of the Wave Mechanics is accompanied by a gross misunderstanding of the physical concepts involved. It is the latter which Larson points out and condemns in his criticism of the conventional atomic theory.[6] It might be worthwhile to examine if the Wave Mechanics could be purged of its conceptual errors, drawing from our knowledge of the Reciprocal System, and see if the transformed version could be integrated into the Reciprocal System scheme with advantage. After all we have seen this happen in the case of the Special Theory of Relativity. Some of its mathematical aspects—like Lorentz transformations or the massenergy equivalence—could be adopted by the Reciprocal System after purging the Theory of the wrong interpretations.
Reinterpretation of the Physical Concepts of the Wave Mechanics
Let us take a look at the original points linking the concepts of the wave with that of the moving particle. The frequency n and the wavelength l of the wave are respectively given by n = E/h = M.c²/h (1) l = h/p = h/(M.v) (2) where E is the energy, p the particle momentum, M the mass, v the particle speed, c the speed of light and h Planck's constant. Now the product of n and l gives the wave velocity u = n. l = c2/v (3) That is, measured in the natural units, the propagation speed of the wave associated with the particle is the inverse of the particle speed: unat = u/c = 1/(v/c) = 1/vnat (4) As the speed of the particle increases from zero upwards, the corresponding speed of the associated wave decreases from infinity downwards. It is at this juncture that our knowledge of the Reciprocal System helps clarify the physical situation. In particular, we recall that while speed is reckoned from the standpoint of a threedimensional spatial reference system, inverse speed is reckoned from the standpoint of a threedimensional temporal reference system. While the speed of the origin of the threedimensional spatial reference system is zero in that system, the inverse speed of the origin of the threedimensional temporal reference system is zero in the latter system. Or what comes to the same thing, the speed of the temporal zero would be infinite in the spatial reference system. It can easily be seen that a particular speed vnat reckoned from the spatial reference system is identical to the inverse speed 1/vnat reckoned from the temporal reference system. Therefore it follows that the switching from the particle speed vnat to the associated wave speed unat = 1/vnat is tantamount to the shifting of the reckoning from the threedimensional spatial reference system to the threedimensional temporal reference system.
This is exactly what needs to be done at the juncture where the phenomena (motion) under consideration enter the Time Region (see Appendix I). In the Time Region there could be only motion in time, and the relevant reference frame to represent the motion would have to be the threedimensional temporal reference frame. Since changing from the corpuscular view to the wave view has the significance of shifting from the threedimensional spatial reference frame to the threedimensional temporal reference frame, the theorists have been unknowingly adopting the right procedure in connection with the calculations relevant to atomic dimensions. But it is no longer necessary to maintain, as the theorists do, that an entity is a particle as well as a wave at the same time, since these two views are irreconcilable. The truth is that the particle viewed from the threedimensional spatial reference frame is the wave viewed from the threedimensional temporal reference frame. While the particle has a definite location in the former reference frame, the associated wave, being monochromatic, has infinite extent. In the temporal reference frame it appears as infinite repetition. We often come across situations where a change of the coordinate frame, say, from the rectangular to the polar, facilitates the mathematical treatment. In such cases, the same geometrical form—or more generally, the spacetime configuration, namely, motion— takes on different mathematical forms in the different coordinate frames. In the present context we have the converse situation, wherein different coordinate frames engender different spacetime configurations from the same underlying reality (see Appendix II). In other words, a change of coordinate frames transforms one physical object (spacetime configuration) into an apparently different physical object. Time and again we find the theorists being compelled to resort to similar transformations (without, of course, the benefit of the insight given by the Reciprocal System). Consider, for example, the phenomenon of diffraction of particles/waves by crystal lattices. Here they customarily work out the interaction in terms of the wave vector k and the reciprocal lattice, instead of the wavelength l and the direct lattice respectively. The quantity k = 2p / l is called the wave number. The vector with modulus k and an imputed direction is the wave vector k. From Eq.(2) it can be seen that the wave vector represents momentum. If a1, a2 and a3 are the sides of the unit cell of a crystal lattice, then the array of points drawn with unit cell sides b1 = 2p /a1, b2 = 2p /a2 and b3 = 2p /a3 is called the reciprocal lattice. Without genuine insight, it is regarded as the invariant geometrical object whose properties are fundamental in the theory of solids. However, from the Reciprocal System we know that in solids the motion equilibrium is in the Time Region, where space is replaced by equivalent space (reciprocal space). Therefore we can readily see the rationale in adopting the wave vector (reciprocal length) and the reciprocal lattice in place of the wavelength and the direct lattice respectively.
The Uncertainty Principle
The quantum theorists, being uninformed about the existence of the Time Region, naturally thought that these waves, associated with the particles, exist in the space of the conventional reference system, while the truth is that they exist in the equivalent space of the Time Region. Now a particle is localized whereas its associated wave is spread out infinitely. Since the theorists have been mistaking that both the particle and the associated
wave exist in the space of the conventional reference frame, they thought if D x is the region in which the particle is located then it is reasonable for the wave too to be limited to the same extent D x. So they took recourse to the concept of wave packet. The latter is a superposition of plane waves, with their wave numbers in the range D k centered around the de Broglie wave number k (= 2p /l) and producing a resultant wave whose amplitude is nonzero only for a space of D x, equal to the "size" of the particle. They then identify the wave packet, rather than the original monochromatic wave, with the particle. The socalled uncertainty principle stems from this procedure, because the range of size D x, and the range of wave number D k, of the waves composing the wave packet, are inversely related as could be seen from Fourier analysis. D x @ 1/D k (5) Using Eq.(2) we have D x. D p @ h/2 p (6) which is the conventional statement of the uncertainty principle. But now, one realizes that while the particle is localized in space, it does not entail that the associated wave is also to be somehow localized in space, since the latter is to be reckoned from the point of view of the threedimensional temporal reference frame and not the spatial reference frame. It may be a practical difficulty to measure both the location and the momentum of a system of atomic dimensions with unlimited accuracy simultaneously. But the conclusion drawn by the theorists from the uncertainty principle that a system of atomic dimensions does not possess these properties of precise location and precise momentum simultaneously can be seen to be invalid. As Larson rightly points out, conclusions such as these are applicable only to the theorists' model, not to the actual system. The uncertainty principle is merely the statement of the fact that the characteristic length belonging to space, namely D x cm, and the characteristic length belonging to equivalent space, namely D k cm1, are reciprocally related (Eq.(5)).
The Probability Interpretation
The next thing to be recognized is that the wave information is not to be visualized as mapped out in the space of the conventional spatial reference system. The reference frame for the wave is a temporal manifold. As creatures of the material sector we have no direct access to the threedimensional temporal reference frame: rather we are anchored to the threedimensional spatial reference frame. But fortunately, we can accomplish the equivalent of the transformation from the spatial to the temporal frame by the contrivance of adopting the wave picture in place of that of the particle. It must continually be borne in mind that the threedimensional spatial manifold being used in this context is so used as a temporal analogue. This is why the wave function (specifically, the square of the amplitude) takes on the probability interpretation. The action itself is unambiguous and precise, but since it takes place in the temporal reference frame, the outcome in the threedimensional spatial reference frame is governed by chance and therefore statistical.
The randomness of the radioactive disintegration is another example to the point. When the total mass (rotational + vibrational) of the atom builds up to the upper zero point for rotation, the timezero as we might call, the (excess) motion reverts to the linear status and is jettisoned as radiation or other particles. Since it is the result of reaching the timezero point the action is in time instead of space. The radioactive disintegration proceeds continuously and contiguously in threedimensional time. But since locations in the threedimensional temporal frame are only randomly connected to the locations in the threedimensional spatial frame, the apparent disintegration of the atoms (as observed from the conventional spatial standpoint) seems utterly random. Again the interference of light is another example. The crests and troughs of the resultant wave in the twoslit experiment coincide respectively with the regions where the maximum and the minimum number of photons reach. But if the beam intensity is very low, say only a few photons are passing the slits, then all that we can say is that a photon has a greater likelihood of arriving at the location indicated by the wave crest rather than at any other place. In other words, the wave (square of the amplitude) takes on a probability interpretation. This is also precisely the reason why the theorists find some of these forces to be nonlocal in nature—a totally nonclassical phenomenon—namely, that they originate in the Time Region and the connection between the locations in threedimensional time and the locations in threedimensional space is random. We have discussed this point in connection with the phenomena of ferromagnetism[7] and superconductivity.[8]
Wave Mechanics without the Nucleus
In The Case against the Nuclear Atom[6] Larson advances arguments to establish that the concept of the nucleus of the atom is untenable. He points out that, in fact, the "size" of the nucleus obtained by the scattering experiments is rather the size of the atom itself. Our calculations in the next section corroborate this. While Larson's confutation of the nuclear concept proceeds from his original arguments, his criticism of the Quantum Theory, given in the same work, was based entirely on citations from other experts in the field, including those of the pioneers of the Theory. Larson himself does not directly analyze or comment upon any part of the Quantum Theory or the Wave Mechanics. And all those criticisms he quotes deal with the epistemological difficulties only—such as the "lack of rationality," etc. which we mentioned at the outset—none deal with the mathematical aspects. Now since we realize that the entire confusion in the area arises from the fact that the theorists do not distinguish between the space of the conventional reference system and the equivalent space of the Time Region (of which they do not know), if we set this right by explicitly recognizing that the associated wave is reckoned from the threedimensional temporal reference frame, we would have achieved much progress. Since according to the Reciprocal System there is no nucleus, we need to give new interpretation to the energy term occurring in the Schrödinger equation for the wave. It cannot be regarded as the energy level of an orbiting electron. But as we shall see below, this can be treated as the energy level of the atom itself.
The Size of the Atom
Larson[6] has pointed out that as the threedimensional motion that constitutes the atom extends in the Time Region, its measured size in the timespace region (namely, the conventional threedimensional spatial frame) would be much smaller than one natural unit of space, snat. It is reduced by the interregional ratio, 156.444, which was calculated earlier[9] as the number of degrees of freedom in the Time Region, and 8, which is the number of degrees of freedom in the timespace region. Since the atomic rotation is threedimensional, the cube of 156.444 is the applicable value. So the measured atomic radius would be the following snat/(8 * 156.4443) = 1.4883 x 1013 cm (adopting snat = 4.558816 x 106 cm from Larson[10]). Since actually it is the volume with which the equation is concerned, rather than the length (radius), there is an additional geometrical factor, f, relating the volume of a cube (of side f*x) with that of a sphere (of diameter x) given by (f * x)3 = p * x3/6 which gives f = 0.806. Adopting this, the measured radius, based on the natural unit of volume concerned, would be f * 1.4883 x 1013 cm = 1.1995 x 1013 cm But this is specifically the measured radius of an atom of unit atomic weight. If the atomic weight of the atom is A units, then the measured radius of the atom turns out to be rA = 1.2 * A1/3 fm (7) As can be seen, this agrees well with the results obtained from the scattering experiments for the socalled nuclear radius. This therefore confirms Larson's view that the experimenters are confusing the atom with the nucleus.
The Region of Onedimensional Motion
We recall that the atom is constituted of three rotations abc. "a" and "b" are twodimensional rotations (threedimensional motion) in two of the scalar dimensions, and "c" is the onedimensional reverse rotation in the third scalar dimension. Since this onedimensional rotation is not the basic rotation of the atom, the interregional ratio applicable to this is the purely rotational factor 128. As the degrees of freedom in the timespace region is 8 as already pointed out, the range of sizes associated with the onedimensional rotation in the Time Region is snat/(8 * 128) = 4.45 x 109 cm (8) Hence we can expect the discrete speeds which exist within this spatial range, as far as the onedimensional type of rotation is concerned, to be part of the atomic structure and the origin of the energy levels that explain the line spectra. Our preliminary study
suggests that further prospects for the understanding of the spectroscopic data lie in this zone of onedimensional rotation of the Time Region.
Conclusion
It is shown that while the Wave Mechanics has been very successful and accurate mathematically, it is fraught with some fundamental errors. A review of the latter in the light of the Reciprocal System of theory shows that the principal stumbling block was the ignorance of the existence of the Time Region and its peculiar characteristics. Knowledge of the Reciprocal System enables us to recognize two crucial points: (i) that the wave associated with a moving particle, in systems of atomic dimensions, exists in the equivalent space of the Time Region; and (ii) that the switching from the particle view to the wave view is equal in significance to shifting from the standpoint of the threedimensional spatial reference frame to that of the threedimensional temporal reference frame. This recognition not only throws new light on the intriguing waveparticle duality, but also corrects the conceptual error that eventually led the theorists to the wrong conclusion that the world of the very small does not conform to the rational laws that are applicable to the macroscopic world. It is shown that the uncertainty principle does not stem from the intrinsic nature of the atomic phenomena, as the theorists would have us believe, but is rather the result of gratuitously assuming that the wave associated with a moving particle is spatially coextensive with the particle. The probability connotation of the wave function is shown to arise from the two facts that the wave is existent in the threedimensional temporal manifold, and that locations in the threedimensional temporal manifold and the threedimensional spatial manifold respectively are randomly connected. The nonlocal nature of the forces in the Time Region also follows from this. Calculations based on the interregional ratios applicable confirm Larson's assertion that the measured size of the atom is in the femtometer range and hence the actual atom is being confused with the nonexistent nucleus. It is suggested that the investigation of the onedimensional motion zone of the Time Region, in conjunction with the adoption of the Wave Mechanics corrected of its conceptual errors, will lead to greater understanding of the atomic structure and thereby pave the way for the complete explanation by the Reciprocal System, of the spectroscopic data, as well as the other recalcitrant problems connected with the properties of rareearths etc.
References
1. Larson D.B., The Structure of the Physical Universe, North Pacific Pub., Portland, Oregon, USA, 1959, pp. 122125 2. Gilroy D.M., ―A Graphical Comparison of the Old and New Periodic Tables,‖ Reciprocity, Vol. XIII, No. 3, Winter 1985, pp. 127
3. Sammer J., ―The Old and New Periodic Tables  Again,‖ Reciprocity, Vol. XX, No. 4, Winter 199192, pp. 713 4. Tucek R.V., "New Periodic Table," Reciprocity, Vol. XXI, No. 1, Spring 1992, p. 20 5. Kirk T., "Periodic Table, Revisited," Reciprocity, Vol. XXI, No. 2, Autumn 1992, pp. 1013 6. Larson D.B., The Case Against the Nuclear Atom, North Pacific Pub., Portland, Oregon, USA, 1963 7. Nehru K.V.K., "Is Ferromagnetism a Comagnetic Phenomenon?" Reciprocity, Vol. XIX, No. 1, Spring 1990, pp. 68 8. Nehru K.V.K., "Superconductivity: A Time Region Phenomenon," Reciprocity, Vol. XIX, No. 3, Autumn 1990, pp. 16 9. Nehru K.V.K., "The Interregional Ratio," Reciprocity, Vol. XIV, No. 23, Winter 198586, pp. 59 10. Larson D.B., Nothing but Motion, North Pacific Pub., Portland, Oregon, USA, 1979, p. 160
Appendix I
According to the Reciprocal System space and time occur in discrete units only. If two atoms approach each other in space, they cannot come any nearer than one natural unit of space, snat. Within one natural unit of space no decrease in space is possible since one natural unit is the minimum that can exist. However, since the basic constituents of the physical universe are units of motion, or speed, in which space and time are reciprocally related, an increase in time (t) with space constant is equivalent to a decrease of space (1/t). This is referred to as the equivalent space in the Reciprocal System. Therefore, though the atoms cannot approach each other nearer than one natural unit of space, they can do so in the equivalent space by moving outward in time. As all changes in this region inside unit space are in time only, it is referred to as the Time Region.
Appendix II
Consider, for instance, a wave motion in the threedimensional temporal reference frame, of amplitude given by r = A + B.cos q (i) with A and B constants, and q the time coordinate. In order to return to the spatial reference frame, we (i) transform the time coordinate q into f , a rotational space coordinate—rotational because all our time measurements are based on cyclical processes; and (ii) transform r into 1/r, since equivalent space and actual space are reciprocally related. We then find that the above equation (of the wave configuration)
becomes the equation of an ellipse (or hyperbola) that represents the locus of a planetary mass point revolving around a central force 1/r = A + B.cos f (ii) where A/(A2B2) is the semimajor axis and B/A the eccentricity. (It must be cautioned that though the above example illustrates the point in question, it is not a complete analogy.)
―QUANTUM MECHANICS‖ AS THE
MECHANICS OF THE TIME REGION
The preliminary results of a critical study of the Wave Mechanics carried out in the light of the knowledge of the Reciprocal System of theory have been reported earlier.[1] Some of its important findings are as follows. While the Wave Mechanics has been very successful mathematically, it contains some fundamental errors. The principal stumbling block has been the ignorance of the existence of the Time Region and its peculiar characteristics. The crucial points that need to be recognized are that the wave associated with a moving particle, in a system of atomic dimensions, exists in the equivalent space of the Time Region: and that switching from the particle view to the wave view is equal in significance to shifting from the standpoint of the threedimensional spatial reference frame to that of the threedimensional temporal reference frame that is germane to the Time Region. To imagine that even gross objects have a wave associated with them is a mistake: the question of the wave does not arise unless the phenomena concerned enter the Time Region. One corollary is that the theorists ―assumption that the wave associated with the moving particle is spatially coextensive with the particle is wrong since the former exists in the equivalent space, not in the extension space of the conventional spatial reference system. The Uncertainty Principle stems from the theorists‖ practice of resorting to wave packets. It has further been shown that the probability connotation of the wave function arises from the two facts that the wave is existent in the threedimensional temporal manifold, and that locations in the threedimensional temporal manifold are only randomly connected to locations in the threedimensional spatial manifold. The nonlocal nature of the forces (motions) in the Time Region also follows from these facts. Calculations based on the interregional ratios applicable confirm Larson‘s assertion that the measured size of the atom is in the femtometer range and hence what is found from the scattering experiments is the size of the atom itself—not of a nucleus. From the above study it became abundantly clear that the critics‘comments that the smallscale world is not intrinsically rational, and that the Quantum theory cannot be understood intuitively were wrongly founded. What was really missing was the knowledge of the existence and characteristics of the Time Region, the region inside the natural unit of space, where only motion in time is possible. Since our knowledge of the Reciprocal System helped straighten some of the conceptual kinks of the Wave Mechanics and has indicated that its original basis has been rightly (though unconsciously) founded, an attempt has been made to inquire into its mathematical aspects in order to see whether they are valid in the light of our understanding of the Reciprocal System. The results of this inquiry are reported in this article. 1. Where Do We Stand Before proceeding further it would be desirable to take a stock of the atomic situation form the point of view of the Reciprocal System.
Firstly, Larson[2] asserts that the atom is without parts, that it is a unit of compound motion, motion being the basic constituent of the physical universe. This means that both the nucleus and the socalled orbital electrons are nonexistent. Secondly, he argues that there is no electrical force either, involved in the atomic structure. This, therefore, leaves gravitation and the spacetime progression as the only two motions (forces) that operate inside the Time Region with, of course, the appropriate modifications peculiar to the Time Region introduced into them. Under these circumstances the question of a ―nuclear‖ force does not arise at all. But it is perfectly legitimate to inquire what forces (motions) are encountered by a particle as it approaches the vicinity of an atom, and indeed, as it enters the very atom itself. Equally important is to inquire into the mechanics of the converse process of the emission of a particle by the atom. 2. The Wave Equation The most fundamental starting point for the mathematical treatment in the Quantum Mechanics is the wave equation. The wave equations in the quantum theory govern the wave functions associated with the particles, and correspond to Newton‘s laws of classical mechanics. From our earlier study we have seen that changing from the particle picture to the wave picture is a legitimate strategy that needs to adopted on entering the Time Region, as it is tantamount to shifting from the conventional threedimensional spatial reference frame of the timespace region to the threedimensional temporal reference frame of the Time Region. Therefore the next logical step is to examine how the governing equations of the wave phenomena have been arrived at, and see if it is in consonance with the Reciprocal System. Since it is always possible to constitute a wave of any shape by superposing different sinusoidal waves of appropriate wavelengths and frequencies, we shall limit our discussion to these elementary sinusoidal waves. The relation between the wave number k and the wavelength on the one hand, and that between the angular frequency and frequency on the other, are as follows k=2 / The wave speed u is given by u= . = /k (2) ; =2 (1)
The general functional forms of sinusoidal waves are sin (kx ei(kx
t)
t) ; cos (kx
t)
(3)
and in complex exponential form (see Appendix I) (4) where the imaginary unit i is defined by i2 = 1.
Complex functions involve a real part and an imaginary part. Since at this stage of our discussion the nature of the wave function of particles is yet unknown, there is no theoretical reason to exclude complex functions. Let us bear in mind that the criterion of judgment is what is possible in the Time Region, not what is possible in the timespace region. To be sure, observable quantities in the timespace region ought to be real. However, by virtue of the second power relation between corresponding quantities in the Time Region and the timespace region, the observable value of a Time Region quantity would still be real even if it were to be imaginary in the Time Region (e.g.: a quantity i.v in the Time Region would appear as (i.v)2, that is, v2 in the outside region). 3. Radiation Waves Let us derive the governing equation for the wave propagating at constant speed, like that of radiation. First we note the relation between the momentum p of the wave and the wave number k, and the energy E and its angular frequency , p=k;E= (5)
where is Planck‘s constant h divided by 2 . From the energymomentum relationship of the wave, p2c2 = E2, (c being the constant wave speed) we have p2 = E2/c2; 2k2 = 2
2
/c2; k2 =
2
/c2 (6)
Assuming the simplest wave form, that of a sine wave, we write the wave function in complex exponential form as (x,t) = A.ei(kxt)
(7)
where A is an arbitrary constant. For such a function, / x = ik. and / t = i . (8)
That is, taking the derivative with respect to x is equivalent to multiplying by ik, and taking the derivative with respect to time t is equivalent to multiplying by i . Thus
2
/ x2 = (ik)2. / x2 = (1/c2)
= k2.
2
and
2
/ t2 = (i )2.
=
2
.
(9)
Substituting these in the last of Eq.(6) we obtain
2
/ t2 (10)
which is exactly the wave equation we are seeking (see Appendix II). 4. Matter Waves At the instance of his mentor Peter Debye, Erwin Schrödinger made a detailed study of the wave hypothesis advocated in 1924 by de Broglie. Schrodinger noted that the energymomentum relationship of a free particle (not acted by forces) of mass m
p2/2m = E (11) leads to the wave numberangular frequency relation 2k2/2m = (12)
From Eqs. (2) and (12) we see that the wave speed in this case is given by u = k/2m (13) Therefore the speed of the matter waves is not constant like that of the radiation waves, but is a function of the wave number k. Eq. (12) could be rearranged as ( 2/2m) (ik)2 = i (i ) Multiplying both sides by ( 2/2m) (
2
, we can at once see from Eqs. (8) and (9) that / t) (14)
/ x2) = i (
which is the governing equation for the wave associated with the free particle that we are looking for. This is the Schrödinger equation for the free particle. It is the equation in the Time Region which corresponds to Newton‘s first law of the timespace region. In order to include interactions of the particles with the environment we note that the total energy of such a particle consists of the kinetic energy and the potential energy. The latter could be taken to be dependent only on position and represented by a potential energy function V(x). Thus for a conservative system we have the constant total energy E given by p2/2m + V(x) = E (15) The corresponding wave numberfrequency relation, associating frequency with the total energy, is 2k2/2m + V = Adopting Eqs. (8) and (9) as before, we arrive at the Schrödinger wave equation with interaction present –( 2/2m) (
2
/ x2) + V(x)
= i (
/ t) (16)
This corresponds in the Time Region to Newton‘s second law in the timespace region. As can be seen from the foregoing derivations, nothing against the principles of the Reciprocal System has been introduced so far. Hence the Schrodinger equations can be admitted as legitimate governing principles for arriving at the possible wave functions of an hypothetical particle of mass m traversing the Time Region, with or without potential energy functions as the case may be. We may note in the passing that often considerable mathematical dexterity is required in
solving these differential equations, though computeroriented numerical methods are fast replacing closedform solutions. Any wave corresponding to a state of definite energy E has a definite frequency = E/. Therefore from Eq. (7) we can write (x,t) = A.e–iEt/ . (x) (17) where (x) is a function of space variable only. Inserting the above into Eq. (16) and dividing out the factor e–iEt/ throughout, we get the differential equation to be satisfied by (x) ( 2/2m) (
2
/ x2) + V(x) (x) = E. (x) (18)
which is referred to as the timeindependent Schrödinger equation. This equation is less general and is valid only for states of definite total energy. 5. States of Negative Energy It is instructive to see what the solutions of Schrödinger equation turn out to be. Firstly, in any region of constant potential energy V, we see that the solution of Eq. (18) is a sinusoidal function, (x) = A.sin kx or A.cos kx, and k2 = 2m(EV)/2 (19) (EV) being the kinetic energy. 6. The Step Function In Fig. 1(a) we picture a stepfunction potential energy, which is constant at V1 and V2 respectively in two different regions. A possible wave function corresponding to this case is shown in Fig. 1(b). The particle‘s greater kinetic energy (EV1) in the region x>0 is reflected in its larger wave number (smaller wavelength) in this region. Also since its speed in this region is greater, it spends comparatively less time in this region, and this reflects as its smaller amplitude in this region. An interesting case occurs when the potential energy V in any region is greater than the total energy E. Here the kinetic energy, EV, becomes negative! This is physically impossible in the timespace region and the particle can never enter such region. However, the situation is different in the Time Region: Eq. (18) has valid solutions in the region, with k from Eq. (19) taking on imaginary values, (x) = A.e
bx
, and b = ik (20)
The sign of the exponent is so chosen as to see that tends to zero for large x. Fig. 2 illustrates this case: in the region x 0 we see that E is less than the potential energy. The wave function is sinusoidal in the region of positive kinetic energy and is exponential in the region of negative kinetic energy. Both functions join smoothly at x=0 with a first order continuity. The penetration of the wave
function into the region of negative kinetic energy has no classical analog and is purely a phenomenon of the Time Region. 7. Explanation of the Negative Energy States When we turn to the Reciprocal System for an explanation of the possibility of the existence of negative energy states, what we find is as follows. In the timespace region, that is, in the context of the threedimensional spatial reference frame, speed (space/time) is vectorial, that is, can have direction in space and therefore could take on positive or negative values. This is because in this case space is threedimensional and time is scalar. In this frame, energy, which is onedimensional inverse speed (time/space), is scalar, and can take on zero or positive values only. On the other hand, the Time Region is a domain of the threedimensional temporal reference frame. In this case time is threedimensional and space is scalar. Consequently the inverse speed (namely, energy) is the quantity that is ―directional,‖ that is, can take on a ―temporal direction‖ in the context of the threedimensional temporal reference frame. Therefore it is perfectly possible for it to take on negative values as well. (It must be cautioned that ―direction in time‖ has nothing to do with direction in space; it is to be understood that we are only speaking metaphorically.) Further, in the Time Region, speed is the quantity that is scalar, an example being the net total speed displacement of the atom, namely, the atomic number Z. Moreover the possibility that even potential energy (being an inverse speed) could be ―directional‖ in the threedimensional time, and hence be represented by complex numbers in the Time Region, cannot be overlooked. Indeed the Quantum theorists find it necessary to adopt the complex potential V+iW in place of V in scattering theory. Here the wave number k becomes complex and is written as k+iq. b of Eq. (20) becomes b = i(k + iq) = q + ik, and we have = (A.eqx)(eikx) (21) We can at once see that this is the wave function of a travelling wave of whose amplitude decreases as it advances, and therefore represents a beam of particles some of which are getting absorbed. 8. The Potential Energy Barrier An interesting situation arises when two regions of positive kinetic energy occur separated by a potential energy barrier that is higher than the total energy as shown in Fig. 3(a). In the central region (of negative kinetic energy) the wave function is exponential, while it is sinusoidal on either side as shown in Fig. 3(b). At either boundary the function and its first derivative are continuous. From this it is apparent that the particle represented by the wave has a nonzero probability of appearing on the other side of the barrier! While this is a real Time Region phenomenon that has been observed (the ―tunneling‖ ), it has no analog in the timespace region (classical mechanics). 9. The Potential Energy Well
The last case of interest we wish to consider is that of a potential well as shown in Fig. 4(a), wherein the total energy E is less than the potential energy V1 in the outer regions. As before, we find that the wave function is sinusoidal in the (central) region of positive kinetic energy, and is exponential in the (outer) regions of negative kinetic energy, maintaining first order continuity at the boundaries. But here a new factor emerges, namely, that if we choose an arbitrary value of E, it might become necessary to adopt growing exponentials in the outer regions (for example, e+bx for x L) so as to satisfy the continuity conditions at the boundary. This therefore leads to an unreal state of affairs. The physical requirement is that the wave function goes towards zero with increasing space coordinate in the outer regions. This necessitates the choice of shrinking exponentials in the outer regions (for example, ebx for x L). This requirement, coupled with the continuity constraints at the boundary, limits the possible energies to a series of distinct levels, each with its own wave function. Thus, welltype potential energy functions give rise to set of possible discrete energy levels. This fact can be seen directly to lead to the explanation of several observable facts including the atomic spectra. 10. Origin of the Pauli Exclusion Principle The socalled exclusion principle was originally promulgated by Wolfgang Pauli. This is an empirical law to which no exception was ever found. It has been a heuristic guiding rule for understanding many an important quantum phenomenon. In spite of its important role, the explanation of its origin has defied the theorists. Therefore that this explanation is now forthcoming from the Reciprocal System is a point in favor of the general nature of the latter theory. i. The Spin But first we must recognize a point that we have been emphasizing,[3,4] namely, that rotational space is as fundamental as the linear (extension) space. Larson explains: ―...the electron is essentially nothing more than a rotating unit of space. This is a concept that is rather difficult for most of us when it is first encountered, because it conflicts with the idea of the nature of space that we have gained from a longcontinued, but uncritical, examination of our surroundings. ...the finding that the ―space‖ of our ordinary experience, extension space, as we are calling in this work, is merely one manifestation of space in general opens the door to an understanding of many aspects of the physical universe...‖ [5] He points out that an atom, for example, can exist in a unit of rotational space as it can in a unit of extension space. In a Paper entitled Photon as Birotation[6] we have derived that the basic unit of angular momentum is ½ . Now we find that the Quantum theorists have been referring to this basic unit of rotational space as the spin. In addition to the three space coordinates spin is treated as a fourth coordinate. Thus two different particles can occupy the same location in extension space at the same time if their spin coordinate differs.
ii.
Indistinguishability In connection with a class of elementary particles, we know that any two individual particles (say, two electrons) are absolutely alike. In the timespace region, the fact that two particles are identical presents no complications since they can be kept distinguished by their respective locations. But in the quantum phenomena, because of the nonlocal nature of the Time Region, no such distinction is possible. This intrinsic indistinguishability gives rise to some special constraints. Let us take (1,2) to be the wave function of two indistinguishable particles with particle 1 at location r1 (whose coordinates include the spin coordinate also) and particle 2 at location r2. Then [ (1,2)]2 represents the probability distribution for particle 1 to be at r1 and particle 2 to be at r2. Since we cannot distinguish between the particles, the wave function should be of such a form that it results in the same probability distribution if we interchange the two particles in . That is [ (1,2)]2 = [ (2,1)]2 This can be satisfied in two ways, (1,2) = + (2,1) and (1,2) =  (2,1) (22)
The first type of wave functions are referred to as the symmetric and the second as the antisymmetric functions. Now the empirical finding is that the wave functions of particles like protons and neutrons which are known to have halfintegral spin (½ h ) are antisymmetrical, and those of particles with integral spin (like the photons) are symmetrical. The most fundamental statement of Pauli exclusion principle goes somewhat like this: ―Any permissible wave function for a system of spin½ particles must be antisymmetric with respect to interchanging of all coordinates (space and spin) of any pair of particles.‖ But enunciating a principle is quite different from explaining its origin, and the fact is that no theoretical explanation has been found for this empirical finding. One author writes: ―For reasons that are not clearly understood, for electrons, protons, neutrons, and all other spin½ particles, the minus sign is chosen...‖ [7] iii. The Two Types of Reference Points From the Reciprocal System we have now the explanation. Let us recall that in the universe of motion there are two types of reference frames—the conventional, stationary threedimensional spatial reference frame (or its cosmic analog, the threedimensional temporal reference frame) and the moving natural reference frame. We also have two kinds of objects, those having independent motion like the gravitating particles and those having no independent motion of their own and hence are stationary in the natural reference frame, like the photons and those particles having potential
mass[8] only. The reference point for the scalar inward motion of the gravitating particle is the particle itself. Thus if there are two locations A and B in the threedimensional reference frame with this particle situated at A, say, its gravitational motions appears in the direction BA, because it is inward, toward itself. If now the particle is shifted to location B, the direction of its gravitational motion seems reversed, being in the direction AB. This is the origin of the antisymmetry of the wave functions of such particles. As already remarked a unit of onedimensional rotation carries unit spin (½ ). The resultant spin of a twodimensional rotation with unit spin in each dimension is 1x1 = 1 (that is, ½ h ) or is 1x(1) = 1 (that is, ½ ). On the other hand, the resultant spin of a birotation (like the photon) is 1+1 = 2 (that is, ) or 11 = 0. Since gravitation arises out of the twodimensional rotation, we can see that a gravitating particle carries spin½. Thus the wave function of spin½ particles turns out to be antisymmtric. On the other hand, the reference point for the motion of particles like the photons is the location in the natural reference frame, or what Larson calls the absolute location. The natural reference frame is not a spatial manifold; not is it a temporal manifold. It is a speed manifold: each location in it is moving at unit speed, one unit of space per unit of time. Suppose that the spatial separation between two locations in this frame (the absolute locations) increases by n natural units of space. Because of the unit speed criterion, there is concomitant increase in the separation in time by n natural units of time, making n/n = 1. The expansion in space is completely nullified by the expansion in time (because an increase in space is equivalent to a decrease in time and vice versa), and from a spacetime point of view there is no separation between absolute locations. In the context of the threedimensional reference frame, photons appear to move outward from the point of their origin. But we have already seen that the photon is stationary in the absolute location. Its apparent motion is the outward motion of the absolute location (in which it is situated) away from all other absolute locations. The crucial point that should now be recognized is that outward from one absolute location is still outward from any other absolute location because of the equivalence of these absolute locations as explained above. Therefore, interchanging the location of the photon between two such absolute locations has no effect on the sign of its wave function. That is, the wave function of such particles is symmetric. One final word is in order: all that has been said above is also true in the Time Region, except that the scalar direction outward in the timespace region manifests as inward in the Time Region and vice versa. 11. Potentials in the Time Region
Finally it might be of interest to explore the nature and type of the potential energy functions V (see Eq. (15)), in the Time Region. In view of the maiden nature of the investigation and the insufficient time available, the results reported in this section may have to be treated as tentative. i. Dimensional Relations across the Regions Discussing the effect of the inversion of space and time at the unit level on the dimensions of interregional relations, Larson[9] shows that the expressions for speed and quantities related to speed in the Time Region are the second power expressions of the corresponding quantities belonging to the timespace region. This is because motion (speed) has a spatial component and a temporal component. Since unit space is the minimum that can exist, within the Time Region—the region inside unit space—the spatial component of a speed remains constant at 1 unit and all variability can be in the temporal component, t, only. By virtue of the reciprocal relation between space and time the t units of time are equivalent to 1/t unit of space and manifest so in the Time Region. That is why Larson uses the term equivalent space (that is, inverse space) as synonym for Time Region. The equivalent speed in the Time Region is, therefore, given by the ratio of the equivalent space to time, (1/t)/t = 1/t2. This quantity is the second power expression of the speed in the timespace region with 1 unit of space component and t units of time component, namely, 1/t. In an earlier article[1] we have identified two different zones of the Time Region, namely, the onedimensional and the threedimensional. The second power relation mentioned above could be seen to apply specifically to the onedimensional zone, the zone of onedimensional rotation associated with the atoms or subatoms. On the other hand, for the threedimensional zone—where the compound motions constituting an atom exist—the situation is different because the basic rotation that constitutes the atom is twodimensional. The temporal component of a twodimensional rotation in the Time Region would be t2, and its spatial equivalent is 1/t2. So the equivalent speed in the case of twodimensional rotation turns out to be (1/t2)/t2 = 1/t4. As could be seen, this is the fourth power expression of the corresponding timespace region speed 1/t. (Note that in the timespace region time is scalar and there cannot be anything like twodimensional time.) Looking back, we can now easily see why the quantum theorists required complex numbers to deal with the socalled ―electronic energy levels‖ of the atom adequately: they needed to cope up with the twodimensional character of the equivalent speed pertaining to the onedimensional rotation in the Time Region. It also suggests itself that we require to adopt quaternions to handle the socalled ―nuclear energy levels‖ since the dimensionality of the equivalent speed pertaining to the twodimensional rotation in the Time Region is four.
ii.
Potentials in the Timespace Region At this stage of our study we have only two scalar motions (forces) to consider: the spacetime progression and gravitation. In the outside region (the timespace region), the forces due to the spacetime progression and gravitation are respectively given by FPO = KPO and FGO = KGO/r2 (23) where all the quantities concerned are in the natural units, the K‘s are positive constants and r the distance factor. Suffix G refers to gravitation, P to spacetime progression and O to outside region. From the definition of potential, F =  V/ r, we obtain the expressions for the corresponding potentials due to the spacetime progression and gravitation, in the outside region respectively as VPO = KPO.r and VGO = KGO/r (24) The potential due to the spacetime progression is repulsive while that due to gravitation is attractive as can be seen.
iii.
Potentials in the Onedimensional Zone of the Time Region Potential energy being inverse speed, the expressions for the potentials in the onedimensional zone of the Time Region would be the second power expressions of the corresponding ones in the timespace region (Section 5.1). Consequently the spacetime progression and gravitational potentials in this zone could be written as VP1 = KP1.r2 and VG1 = KG1/r2 (25) with suffix 1 referring to the onedimensional zone. We can at once verify that gravitation is repulsive and the spacetime progression attractive in this region. In addition there could be a constant term KI1, representing the initial level of the Time Region potential. Thus the total Time Region potential in the onedimensional zone turns out be VT1 = KP1.r2 + KG1/r2 KI1 (26)
The values of KG1 and KI1, and possibly KP1, are functions of the displacements of the atom in the three scalar dimensions. It is instructive to see what the expressions for the corresponding forces would be: differentiating with respect to r and taking the negative sign, we have FP1 = 2.KP1.r and FG1 = 2.KG1/r3 (27) Larson[10] however, while calculating the interatomic distances in solids, basing on the equilibrium of the Time Region forces, adopts FP1 = 1 and FG1 = K/r4 (28)
where K is a function of the several atomic rotations. These expressions can be seen to differ from Eqs. (27) above. But whether we take Eqs. (27) or Eqs. (28), the force equilibrium equation, FP1 = FG1 can be seen to lead to the same fourth power dependence on the distance factor. Consequently, even if we find that Eqs. (27) are to adopted in preference to Eqs. (28), Larson‘s original interatomic distance calculations would remain unaltered. The Time Region potential Eq.(26) results in a potential well and therefore the solutions of Schrödinger‘s Eq. (18) yield a set of discrete energy levels for the atomic system (see Section 3.4). It remains to be verified whether these truly correspond to the values inferred from the spectroscopic data. iv. Potentials in the Threedimensional Zone of the Time Region Turning now to the potentials in the threedimensional zone, following our earlier analysis of the dimensional situation (Section 5.1), we adopt the fourth power expressions of the corresponding outside region (that is, the timespace region) quantities from Eqs. (24) VP3 = KP3.r4 and VG3 = KG3/r4 (29) with suffix 3 denoting the threedimensional zone. We know that the spacetime progression acts away from unit space. In the timespace region away from unit is also away from zero (the origin of the conventional spatial reference frame), whereas in the Time Region (that is, in less than unit space) away from unit is toward zero. This is the reason why the spacetime progression is an outward motion in the outside region while it is inward in the Time Region. This is true in the onedimensional zone of the Time Region as much as in the threedimensional zone. But the 'unit' of the threedimensional zone does not coincide with the 'unit' of the onedimensional zone. Its boundary is determined by the apparent size of the atom in question. This is because the atom and the threedimensional zone are one and the same thing. (We must avoid falling into the trap of imagining that first there is an atom, and that it 'occupies' the preexisting threedimensional zone!) In Eq. (7) of the article on Wave Mechanics[1] we have derived the following expression for the size of the atom, rA = 1.2 * A1/3 femtometers where A is the atomic weight. Expressing this in the natural units as rAn, we now note that the reference point for reckoning distance in the case of VP3 is not the origin of the reference system but the point at rAn. Finally, since the potential due to progression has to be attractive a minus sign has to be introduced. Thus the expressions for the two potentials are VP3 = KP3.(rAn r)4 and VG3 = KG3/r4 (30)
Adding a constant term KI3 to take care of initial level of the potential energy, we have the total expression for the potential of the threedimensional zone of the Time Region as VT3 = KP3.(rAn r)4 + KG3/r4 KI3 (31)
We note that this corresponds to what the conventional Quantum theorists would call the nuclear potential. Our study indicates that Eq. (31) bears a remarkably close qualitative resemblance to the potentials arrived at through the scattering experiments. An unexpected feature of the experimental data analysis was the occurrence of a repulsive core of small radius. The Reciprocal System, on the other hand, actually predicts this repulsive core, namely, VG3. 12. Conclusions Let us summarize the highlights. Having resolved the riddle of the waveparticle duality in an earlier article[1] and understood the legitimacy of the wave picture in the Quantum theory, attempt has been made to examine the foundation of its mathematical formalism with the benefit of our knowledge of the Reciprocal System. This proved productive in two ways: firstly it clarified the situation in connection with the Quantum Mechanics, identifying some of its conceptual errors. Secondly it gave scope to expand our knowledge of the Reciprocal System in the form of new insights that would not have been possible otherwise. i. ii. The Schödinger equations were found to be valid general rules for the exploration of the wave functions in the various situations. In the timespace region, speed can be vectorial (that is, directional in the context of the threedimensional spatial reference frame), whereas inverse speed (like, energy) is scalar. In the Time Region, speed is found to be scalar, whereas inverse speed is directional—directional in the threedimensional temporal reference frame. Variables of the latter type, therefore, could take on inherently negative values and be represented by complex numbers or quaternions as the case may be. The penetration of the wave associated with particle into the regions of negative kinetic energy resulting from potential energy barriers is found to be a genuine Time Region phenomenon. In a similar vein, it is found that the occurrence of a welltype potential energy function in the Time Region leads to the limiting of possible values of total energy to a discrete set. Such an important empirical law as Pauli exclusion principle, which has no theoretical explanation in the context of the conventional theory, could easily be understood form the knowledge of the positive and negative reference points brought to light by the Reciprocal System.
iii.
iv.
v.
vi.
Reasoning from the principles of the Reciprocal System the possible potential energy functions of the Time Region relevant to atomic systems are surmised. While they evince a close qualitative resemblance to the empirically found potentials, detailed further study needs to be carried out to see if they lead to the correct prediction of the properties pertaining to spectroscopy, radioactivity and the scattering experiments.
On the whole there seems to be a prima facie case in favor of adopting the Quantum Mechanics after purging it of its conceptual errors.
References
1. Nehru K.V.K., ―The Wave Mechanics in the Light of the Reciprocal System,‖ R eciprocity, Vol. XXII, No. 2, Autumn 1993, p. 8 2. Larson D.B., The Case Against the Nuclear Atom, North Pacific Pub., Oregon, USA, 1963 3. Nehru K.V.K., ―The Law of Conservation of Direction,‖ Reciprocity,Vol. XVIII, No. 3, Autumn 1989, p. 3 4. Nehru K.V.K., ―On the Nature of Rotation and Birotation,‖ Reciprocity, Vol. XX, No. 1, Spring 1991, p.8 5. Larson D.B., Basic Properties of Matter, International Society of Unified Science, Utah, USA, 1988, pp. 1023 6. Nehru K.V.K., ―The Photon as Birotation,‖ Reciprocity, Vol. XXV, No. 3, Winter 199697, pp. 1116 7. Cohen B.L., Concepts of Nuclear Physics, Tata McGraw Hill, India, 1971, p. 38 8. Larson D.B., Nothing But Motion, North Pacific Publishers, Oregon, USA, 1979, pp. 1412, 1657 9. Ibid., p. 155 10. Larson D.B., Basic Properties of Matter, op. cit., p. 8
Appendix I: Euler‘s Relations
Often calculations are facilitated by adopting exponential functions with imaginary arguments in place of the sine or cosine functions, making use of Euler‘s relations eia = cos a + i.sin a e–ia = cos a  i.sin a which directly follow from the series expansions of these functions.
A number containing imaginary as well as real parts is called a complex number. Complex numbers may be represented graphically on a rectangular coordinate system, with the real part corresponding to the horizontal axis and the imaginary part to the vertical axis. Any complex number can then be represented by a vector extending from the origin and inclined at the angle a to the real axis. Thus A.ei t represents a (radial) vector of magnitude A rotating at the angular speed (t being time). It may be noted that each of the inverse relations, sin a = (eia  eia)/2i cos a = (eia + eia)/2 represents a birotation.
Appendix II: The General Equation of a Constant Speed Wave
Let a wave of arbitrary but unchanging shape be traveling in the Xdirection of the stationary reference frame XY at a constant speed u. This wave appears stationary in a reference frame X1Y1 which moves at the same speed u along the Xdirection. We can then write x1 = x  u.t ; y1 = y (i) If the wave shape in the comoving frame is given by y1 = f(x1), we have from Eq. (i) y = f(x  u.t) (ii) By the chain rule for derivatives we have y/ x = (dy/dx1)( x1/ x) = (dy/dx1).1, y/ t = (dy/dx1)( x1/ t) = (dy/dx1).(u). Therefore the relation between the two derivatives is y/ x = (1/u)( y/ t) (iii) Similarly for a wave traveling in the X direction we obtain y/ x = +(1/u)( y/ t) (iv) Now a repeated application of the above procedure yields
2
y/ x2 = (1/u2)(
2
y/ t2) (v)
which is the governing equation of the wave function; and it is the same for waves traveling in either direction of the Xaxis. —Reciprocity, Volume XXIV, Number 1, Spring 1995, p. 1; Revised Feb. 1998
NONLOCALITY‘ IN THE RECIPROCAL SYSTEM
Though quantum theory is phenomenologically successful, it fails to throw any light on the nature of the underlying physical reality. The Reciprocal System, true to its claim of a unified and general theory, not only covers the ground of the quantum theory, but also provides insight into the reality, basing on the new paradigm of motion as the sole constituent of the physical universe. Its most important finding is the existence of different domains of physical action, in which the rules of the game apparently differ. Larson resolves all the difficulties the conventional theory is facing, by the knowledge of the characteristics of these domains. Thomas Kuhn, the renowned historian of science and its methodology, writing in The Structure of Scientific Revolutions1, points out that as paradoxes and unsolved puzzles mount up in the science of an era, a state of crisis results. This initiates the development of new theories basing on a totally new paradigm. General acceptance of the new paradigm, however, is not automatic. Old theories die hard because emotional commitment, rather than pursuit of truth, invariably becomes the driving force. Continued endeavor to consider and study the new paradigm by openminded students will gradually establish it in the scientific field. An interesting fact brought to light by Kuhn‘s study is that as more and more human effort gets spent in understanding the new paradigm, it becomes easier and easier for all people to understand it—as though entire mankind is one at deeper levels. Kuhn also points out that as more people accept the new theory, more evidence of it appears. Therefore, consideration of the recalcitrant problems in science—especially, in physics—and showing how the Reciprocal System of theory resolves them should be of interest to us. We shall consider a few of these:
Problem #1: Unification of the four fundamental forces of nature.
Scientists have not been successful in this enterprise of creating a grand unified theory; especially gravitation has not yielded to the unification efforts.
Problem #2: The quantum measurement problem.
In essence, this may be described as follows: Consider, for example, the twoslit electron interference experiment. While the intensity of the wave function represents the probability of finding a particle, the actual measurement reveals the arrival of a particle somewhere on the detector—say, at x1—which is a discrete event. In a sequence of identical measurement situations, the location xi where the ith particle makes its appearance on the detector screen is totally random. But, the relative proportion (frequency) of the particle appearances at any location strictly follows the wave pattern predicted by quantum theory. How do the later particles ‗know‘ the history of the earlier particles, and maintain the overall pattern? Even though individual particles come at different times, there seems to be some sort of connection through time existing among these!
Problem #3: Instantaneous connectedness in space.
Most accurate experimental verification of Bell‘s theorem has positively established that correlated quantum entities—as in the EPR experiment—maintain a strong nonlocal connection, however far they are separated in space. The surprising feature of this nonlocality is that it is immediate, not attenuated by distance and not mediated by any medium. Even though quantum theory predicts the experimental results correctly, the inference of the existence of nonlocality is actually based on experimental facts—not on the quantum theory—plus Bell‘s Inequality theorem. Therefore, nonlocality has to be explained by any new theory that might encompass the quantum theory in the future. Nonlocality has been one of the most baffling features of quantum phenomena, defying all attempts to understand the nature of the reality underlying them. Larson has discussed problem #1 in great length in some of his works26 and developed the thesis sufficiently to establish that, in fact, the Reciprocal System is a unified and general theory. The application of the Reciprocal System to the study of the quantum domain, however, is urgently desiderative. Therefore, in the present discussion, we shall limit ourselves to the consideration of problem #2 and #3, only. Let us begin by briefly recapitulating the Reciprocal System of theory.
Conjugate Sectors of the Physical Universe
The two Fundamental Postulates of the Reciprocal System with which Larson7 starts are: The physical universe is composed of one component, motion, existing in three dimensions, in discrete units, and with two reciprocal aspects, space and time. The physical universe conforms to the relations of ordinary commutative mathematics, its primary magnitudes are absolute, and its geometry is Euclidean. The motion which is the basic constituent of the physical universe is conceived by Larson as scalar motion, or speed, the ratio of space magnitude to time magnitude. All phenomena—radiation, matter, gravitation, electric charge, magnetism—come out as different possible modes of motion. Larson deduces the following: Corollary #1 (quantization): The two components of motion, namely space and time, are quantized; Corollary #2 (reciprocity): Space and time are reciprocally related to speed—an increase in space is tantamount to a decrease in time, and vice versa; Corollary #3 (symmetry): Both space and time have identical characteristics: time has three dimensions like space, and space, too, progresses like time does. Further, we find that the possible speeds in the physical universe fall into two natural ranges: from speed zero to unity, and from unity to infinity. However, from the Reciprocal System we learn that speeds exceeding unity do not manifest as motion in space; instead, they manifest as motion in time (not the time travel of science fiction). Larson calls the domain of the physical universe in which the speeds range from zero to
unity the material sector, and that in which the speeds range from unity to infinity (or what comes to the same thing, the inverse speeds range from zero to unity) as the cosmic sector. By virtue of the symmetry, all the phenomena of the material sector, which is the sector we inhabit, are duplicated in the cosmic sector with the roles of space and time interchanged. Unit speed—which Larson identifies as the speed of light—is the boundary between the two sectors, and forms the background of the physical universe. Larson refers to this everpresent spacetime progression at unit speed as the natural reference frame (which we shall refer to as the Nframe). An immediate consequence of the spacetime progression is the observed recession of the galaxies (which is being mistakenly attributed to a hypothetical ‗big bang‘). It also resolves the mystery of the propagation of radiation. Radiation is not propagated at all; the space unit, in which the photon is situated permanently, itself progresses. For reasons explained by Larson4, gravitation always acts in opposition to the ubiquitous progression of spacetime. Since spacetime progression acts outward in space (as well as outward in time), gravitation in the material sector acts inward in space, and gravitation in the cosmic sector (that is, cosmic gravitation) acts inward in time. So, to observers anchored to material aggregates, like we are, space appears stationary and threedimensional, while time seems progressing onedimensionally. The reference frame that is natural to us is the familiar stationary, threedimensional spatial reference frame (which we shall refer to as the Sframe. See Figure 1).
In the cosmic sector, the result of cosmic gravitation acting inward in time is that the three dimensions of time and the onedimensional progression of space stand out. The reference frame that is natural to the cosmic sector is the threedimensional, temporal reference frame (which we shall refer to as the Tframe). In passing, we might recall that cosmic background radiation is the radiation emitted by cosmic stars of the cosmic sector, and cosmic rays are the cosmic matter ejected from the cosmic quasars. The uniformity and isotropy of both these items—which have no good explanation in conventional theory—can be seen to stem from the fact that they originate from cosmic matter which aggregates in threedimensional time, but is randomly distributed in the Sframe of the material sector.
The Time Region
Imagine two material particles moving towards each other in space. By virtue of the quantization corollary, less than one natural unit of space cannot occur in physical interactions. Therefore, the particles cannot approach each other nearer than one effective unit of space in the Sframe. However, they can accomplish the equivalent of this, by virtue of the reciprocity corollary, by moving outward in time. Inside an effective unit of space, there cannot be motion in space; all motion has to be in time only. For this reason, Larson refers to the domain of physical action inside the effective unit of space as the time region.
According to the Reciprocal System, the natural direction of the spacetime progression is always away from unity. In the outer region (beyond unit space) away from unity is also away from zero, and hence the spacetime progression acts outward (1/1). In the region inside unit space (the time region), however, away from unity is toward zero. Hence, the apparent direction of the spacetime progression in the time region is inward (1/1). Gravitation, as it always opposes the spacetime progression, acts apparently outward in the time region. In the Reciprocal System, the physical state—not to be confused with the quantum mechanical state—is the result of reaching motion equilibrium between these two above motions in the time region, and pertains to the individual atom or molecule. It is not a group characteristic as in the conventional theory. Corollary #4 (physical state): The solid state is the result of reaching motion equilibrium in the time region in all three dimensions. The liquid state results when the motion in at least one dimension comes out of the time region, and the gaseous state when the motion is outside the time region in all three dimensions (that is, it is entirely in the Sframe). We have now come to an important juncture. Outside unit space, since all motion is in space, the appropriate frame of reference is the conventional, threedimensional stationary reference frame (the Sframe). However, Corollary #5 (frameinversion): in the time region, since only motion in time can take place, the appropriate frame of reference that should be adopted is the threedimensional temporal reference frame (the Tframe) (see Figure 2).
Summarizing: the physical universe comprises two sectors, the material and the cosmic sectors, with the applicable reference frames being the Sframe and the Tframe, respectively. In the material sector, there is a subregion called the time region, whenever interactions take place in less than one (effective) space unit, with the applicable reference frame being the Tframe. (By symmetry, we have in the cosmic sector a subregion, which we can call the space region, with the applicable reference frame being the Sframe.) We have depicted these schematically in Figure 3.
Quantum Nonlocality
The crucial point that should now be realized is that as a quantum entity—like an electron or a proton—enters the time region, we should change the reference frame to reckon its motion(s) from the Sframe to the Tframe, for the reasons delineated above. We note that the origin (the zeropoint) of the conventional reference frame (the Sframe) is at zero speed in that frame. Similarly, the origin (the zeropoint) of the temporal reference frame (the Tframe) is at zero inverse speed in that frame. But zero inverse speed is tantamount to infinite speed. Consequently, Corollary #6 (spatial nonlocality): the origin of the Tframe would be apparently at all places in our familiar Sframe and at the same time. In other words, it is nonlocal in space. Furthermore, Corollary #7 (nontrajectory): the concept of a particle trajectory in the Sframe is not applicable from the point of view of the Tframe, for the obvious reason that the origin of the Tframe is‗everywhere‘ in the Sframe. In an earlier paper, Wave Mechanics in the Light of the Reciprocal System8, we have shown that, by a consideration of the dynamical relationships, Corollary #8 (wp equivalence): a particle localized in the Sframe is equivalent to a plane monochromatic wave from the point of view of a Tframe and vice versa. We further pointed out that even though one should adopt the Tframe for the description of the interactions in the time region, there is no way to accomplish this since we—as creatures of the material sector—are unavoidably anchored to the Sframe. However, we can achieve the same result by adopting the expedient of shifting from the particle picture to the wave picture by virtue of Corollary #8. We can now see that to depict a quantum entity as both a particle and a wave is wrong. It is a particle, as viewed from the Sframe, and a wave as viewed from the Tframe (See Reference 8). Before proceeding further, we have to note that there are two significant differences between the Tframe of the time region, and the Tframe of the cosmic sector. Referring to Figure 3, we would like to point out: (i) the speed and inverse speed ranges pertaining to the Sframe of the material sector and the Tframe of the cosmic sector respectively meet at unit magnitude; (ii) the speed and inverse speed ranges pertaining to the Sframe of the material sector and the Tframe of the time region respectively meet at zero magnitude. The mathematical fact that while the inverse of unity is unity, the inverse of zero is infinity, introduces a profound difference here. Firstly, the time region is the result of crossing the unit space boundary, while still in the material sector (Sframe), whereas the cosmic sector is the result of crossing the unit speed boundary in all the three dimensions of motion—mark it: three dimensions of motion, not three dimensions of space—and consequently moving out of the material sector, altogether. The motion germane to the cosmic sector is true motion in time, and cannot be represented in the Sframe. On the other hand, the motion in time germane to the time region, does not manifest to us as motion in time, per se, but, by virtue of the
reciprocal corollary, shows up as equivalent motion in space (or as Larson puts it— motion in equivalent space, which is reciprocal space). This is, in fact, a general principle: Corollary #9 (equivalent space): so long as the net speed is on the material sector side of the speed range, the motion in time that might occur as a minor component of the overall speed configuration, acts as a modifier of the motion in space which is the major component. In other words, it manifests as motion in equivalent space, rather than motion in time. Secondly, we have seen by Corollary #6 that as we switch from the Sframe to the Tframe on entering the time region, the origin of the Tframe appears ‗everywhere‘ at‗infinite speed.‘ Further, temporal dimensions are related to spatial dimensions only scalarly, that is, there is no geometrical (vectorial) relationship between temporal and spatial dimensions. Consequently, if we have a case of two distinct particles of the Sframe entering the time region, there is no reason why the three switched dimensions pertaining to one particle should hold any geometrical relationship to the three switched dimensions pertaining to the second particle. The origin (that is, the zeropoint) of the two switched frames, however, is common since it is ‗everywhere‘ at ‗infinite speed.‘ So, Corollary #10 (multiple dimensions): in the case of the frameinversion (Corollary #5) of two interacting particles, unless inhibited by special conditions, we end up with six apparently different dimensions, three each of the two Tframes, respectively. Indeed, we require 3n dimensions to represent n particles. Scientists call this multidimensional manifold the configuration space to distinguish it from the conventional, threedimensional space. We would like to emphasize here that this multiplicity of dimensions arises solely out of the scalar nature of the relation between temporal dimensions and spatial dimensions, and not because the physical universe has a plethora of dimensions. Their occurrence is limited only to the subregions. Corollary #11 (temporal nonlocality): when the interaction eventually comes out from the time region back into the conventional frame, as at the measurement site, the reference frame has to be switched from the Tframe of the time region, back to the familiar Sframe. Like in the case of Corollary #6, this frameswitching entails the phenomenon of nonlocality. But this time, it is nonlocality in time, since the switching is T>S rather than S>T, and so the origin of the Sframe appears ‗everywhen‘ at ‗infinite inverse speed‘ from the point of view of the Tframe.
Quantum Interpretation Problem
The quantum theory has been successful and accurate in predicting the results of all the experiments related to quantum phenomena. But, it is a theory that does not provide any insight into the nature of the physical reality underlying these phenomena. It merely works like a recipe book for cookery. Therefore, scientists have subscribed to different views regarding reality—varying all the way from the ‗official‘ Copenhagen view, which denies the existence of any underlying reality, to the other extreme view of the‗many
worlds‘interpretation of Everett. The question is yet unsettled. We shall show how the Reciprocal System, with its new paradigm, resolves the mystery and knits all the strange and seemingly weird features of the quantum world into one, logical whole. Let us first note two quantum facts: (i) The attributes of the quantum entities fall into two types. The static attributes, like mass, spin and electric charge, are innate to the entity. The dynamic attributes, like position and momentum, seem to depend jointly on the entity and the reference frame of the measurement. (ii) Even in the case of dynamic attributes, so long as the quantum entity is not forced to go through tiny holes, or confine itself to tiny volumes; the entity appears to have a definite position and momentum—like a classical entity. Both these above facts are in total consonance with the Reciprocal System finding that the nonclassical behavior stems from the entry into the time region, which is a subregion (tiny hole, tiny volume) of the translational motion (position, momentum or velocity). Let us consider the familiar electron interference experiment. We have an electron source that shoots a coherent beam of electrons toward a phosphor screen target. Initially, we find a bright spot on the screen where the electrons hit. We then introduce a barrier into the beam provided with two small slits. If the width of the slit is of the order of the wavelength of the electrons in the beam, we observe the light and dark fringes of the interference pattern on the screen, instead of the single, bright spot. There are four versions of quantum theory: the Matrix Mechanics (Heisenberg), the Wave Mechanics (Schrödinger), the Transformation Theory (Dirac) and the ‘sumoverhistories‘approach (Feynman). All of these give the same final result, but Feynman‘s method gives us a better clue as to the nature of the wave function than, for example, solving Schrödinger‘s wave equation. Feynman makes two unusual assumptions, that: (1) a single electron takes all possible paths, and (2) no path has a greater preference. He implements these by assigning the same amplitude to each path. The history of each path, then, determines its phase for any location on the target screen. Feynman then arrives at the amplitude of the electron‘s wave function by summing up the wave amplitudes of all possible paths the electron can take to reach that particular location from its source. Feynman‘s assumptions, that the single electron takes all possible paths, at the same time and with equal probability, are extremely outlandish. But the conclusions that we reach from the deductions of the Reciprocal System are exactly the same! Firstly, on entering the time region, the particle picture is to be replaced by the wave picture, due to the frameinversion and the pw equivalence corollaries. Then, the simultaneous existence of all possible paths is the result of the spatial nonlocality corollary.
As the electron beam brightness is gradually reduced such that we have electron by electron hitting the target, rather than an ensemble all at one time, we fail to observe the interference pattern in real time. However, if we place a photographic plate adjacent to the phosphor screen and wait long enough for sufficient electrons to accrue, the pattern could once again be seen, despite the fact that the individual electrons that are arriving hit the screen at purely random locations. It appears as though it does not matter whether the electrons come at once as an ensemble, or they come at different times—the statistical wave pattern, observed in either case, is exactly the same. But, this is exactly what we should expect by the temporal nonlocality corollary! The same Sframe would appear to be present at all moments, nullifying the time delays between the individual electron events, as though merging them into a single ensemble.
The EPR Experiment
In certain atomic events, two correlated photons in what is called a twin state are emitted in opposite directions. In the particular experiment, the photons are polarizationcorrelated. In this state, either of the photons does not seem to have any definite polarization until measured, even though it is definite that they have mutually opposite polarization. Experiments show that, if we force one of them to take up a specific polarization direction at the first measurement site, the polarization of the twin invariably shows up (at the second measurement site) in the opposite direction, even if the two photons are so far separated in space as to be beyond the reach of the signal that could travel at light speed between them. The results apparently indicate that twin photons are casually connected even if they are beyond the ‗'light cone.‘ Discussing the primary motions in the physical universe, we have pointed out9 that an intrinsically scalar quantity (motion) can manifest in the reference system as a pair of oppositely directed vector quantities, and not as a lone vector. A bivector acts as a true scalar: it does not have a specific direction before manifestation, and can assume any bidirection on manifestation. The twin state is a state of bipolarization—bimomentum, in the EPR original version—which can split into two oppositely directed polarizations in any specified direction. Explaining the EPR phenomenon, Larson states in a communication10: ―A photon occupies a position in the threedimensional spatial reference system and also a position in the analogous threedimensional temporal reference system. If two photons originate coincidentally in such a manner that they separate spatially, they may remain coincident in time; that is, in the same time unit or an adjacent unit. In this case, a change that takes place in one photon will cause an appropriate change in the photon to which it has a connection in time, just as it would if the two were connected in space. "This idea that contact in time is subject to the same considerations as contact in space is not new to the students of the Reciprocal System of theory. It enters into a number of physical situations, particularly in the reverse application, where contacts in space are maintained unchanged when separation takes place in time. As an example...{see} The Universe of Motion11, in which I point out that this explains the containment of the high speed matter in the interiors of the giant galaxies.‖
The Junction of the Living and the Nonliving
In Figure 3, we have depicted the various speed domains of the physical universe which we derived from the theory. We now pursue the logical deduction further. We have seen that the spacetime progression in the time region is inward in space (1/1), whereas in the space region of the cosmic sector it is inward in time (1/1). The time region begins at the zero inverse speed of the Tframe, and ends at 1 inverse speed of the Mframe. Similarly, the space region begins at zero speed of the Sframe and ends at 1 speed of the Mframe. At unit level, speed and inverse speed are effectively identical (1/1 = 1/1). Consequently, we get the complete picture if we unify the Mframe of the space region and the Mframe of the time region. This is depicted in Figure 4.
Since gravitation always acts in opposition to the spacetime progression, it acts outward in the time region. It also turns out that since the spacetime progression acts inward in time in the space region of the cosmic sector, cosmic gravitation in the space region acts outward, too.
Corollary #12 (framemerging): the final result is that the action of gravitation in the time region of the material sector, on one hand, and of cosmic gravitation in the space region of the cosmic sector on the other, are both outward. Larson, in Beyond Space and Time12 extends the application of his theory to the realms of life and consciousness. He notes that in the material sector, all structures spontaneously move from states of greater organization (or order) to states of lesser organization. In other words, the available energy goes on decreasing. But, in the case of living units, like the cells or higher life, the organization level is either maintained or increases, against all odds. It is still an enigma how life is possible at all, in the material universe, if we stick to purely mechanistic explanations. Larson notes that while available energy goes on decreasing in the material sector, the inverse is true in the cosmic sector, namely, the available inverse energy decreases spontaneously. That is, the available energy increases! He, therefore, discovers that what we call a living cell comes into being when the purely material structural unit is connected to and governed by a control unit built of the cosmic structures. By Corollary #12 above, we can readily see how the linking of the cosmic unit with the material unit is possible, and how they can interact, since the nature of the governing force (motion) is identical in both of them. This control, of course, appears nonlocal.
Conclusion
The development of the Reciprocal System of theory finds space and time to be discrete, reciprocally related, and of symmetrical properties. It discovers another sector of the physical universe wherein the applicable speeds range above the speed of light. Inside the quantum of space there is a subregion, called the time region, with nontrivial spacetime characteristics that directly lead to peculiar quantum phenomena. To a large extent, the development is in consonance with the procedures of quantum theory. In addition, it supplies what quantum theory fails to offer—a lucid understanding of the nature of quantum reality. The Reciprocal System has rational explanations for perplexing quantum issues like: waveparticle duality spatial nonlocality temporal nonlocality breakdown of the trajectory concept multidimensional configuration space connection between the living and the nonliving In closing, we need to remind ourselves that the Reciprocal System is not just another new theory, but one that stems from an entirely new paradigm. The new paradigm, that motion is the sole and fundamental constituent of the physical universe, immediately repudiates the ageold practice of viewing space as a container for physical objects and
time as a canvas on which the drama of the universe unfolds. Even though they appear so in the local environment, in reality they are the contents of the universe. The recognition that Reality need not be limited to what is representable in space and time opens the door for a truly scientific approach not only to the study of the physical universe, but also of living systems, parapsychological phenomena, and, indeed, consciousness itself.
References
1. Kuhn, Thomas S., The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, (University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL, 1976). 2. Larson, Dewey B., The Case Against the Nuclear Atom, (North Pacific Publishers, Portland, OR, 1963). 3. Larson, Dewey B., Beyond Newton, (NPP, 1964). 4. Larson, Dewey B., Nothing But Motion, (NPP, 1979). 5. Larson, Dewey B., The Neglected Facts of Science, (NPP, 1982). 6. Larson, Dewey B., Basic Properties of Matter, (International Society of Unified Science, Salt Lake City, UT, 1988). 7. Larson, Dewey B., Nothing But Motion, op. cit., p. 30. 8. Nehru, K.V.K., ―The Wave Mechanics in the Light of the Reciprocal System,‖ Reciprocity XXII (2), Autumn, 1993, pp. 813. 9. Nehru, K.V.K., ―The Law of Conservation of Direction,‖ Reciprocity XVIII (3), Autumn, 1989, pp. 36. 10. Larson, Dewey B., Letter to David Halprin, Nov. 3, 1984. 11. Larson, Dewey B., The Universe of Motion, (NPP, 1984), p. 385. 12. Larson, Dewey B., Beyond Space and Time, (Tucek and Tucek Book Publishers, Tuscon, AZ, 1996).
SOME THOUGHTS ON SPIN
Detailed study of the characteristics of the socalled nucleus of the atom has not been carried out by Larson. Therefore we have undertaken this much needed investigation and been reporting our results.[13] It has been our experience that such investigation hardly ever proceeds in a strictly serial manner. Rather, it is more akin to the process of fitting the pieces of a jigsaw puzzle together. Nascent understanding gradually builds up and evolves from various seemingly diverse starting points, the concepts on each line of thinking modifying the ones on other lines, and in turn themselves getting modified by the latter. Eventually a nexus of coherent structure ensues. The thoughts presented in this article too constitute such a preliminary group of ideas that might serve to crystallize some of the earlier concepts enunciated on the topic of the socalled atomic nucleus.
§1. Spin1 and Spin½.
The onedimensional rotational space (angle) as well as the twodimensional rotational space (solid angle), both are customarily regarded as dimensionless in the context of the conventional threedimensional spatial reference system (the timespace region). This practice, therefore, does not distinguish between onedimensional spin (angular momentum) and twodimensional spin (angular momentum). We end up measuring both in units of ergsec. In order to clarify the issue let us first note that the dimensions of momentum are energy/speed. In the present case these are Planck's constant, h, divided by space unit. If the motion is translational the space unit concerned is taken as centimeter. If the motion is rotational the space unit concerned is taken as radians. The basic unit (quantum) of onedimensional angular momentum is taken as ergsec (spin1), which is the same thing as (h ergs)/(2¶ radians/sec). The denominator, 2¶ radians/sec, can be seen to be onedimensional rotational speed. On this basis the quantum of twodimensional angular momentum is to be taken as (h ergs)/(4¶ steradians/sec), which is the same thing as ½h ergsec (spin½). We can immediately see that particles like photons (the bosons), which have integral spin, are based on onedimensional rotation, whereas those like proton and electron (the fermions), which have halfodd integral spin, are based on twodimensional rotation. In the conventional theory it is recognized that the quantum state of the integerspin particles cycles at 2¶ radians and that of the halfoddintegerspin particles cycles at 4¶ radians. What is needed to clarify the physical fundamentals is to recognize that in the latter case the value is 4¶ steradians rather than 4¶ radiansand hence it really pertains to twodimensional rotation.
§2. Unbounded Phase
There is yet another unforeseen feature of rotation in the Time Region. In the conventional timespace region, after rotating through an angle of 2¶ radians one comes back to the starting point. An angle of radians cannot be distinguished from an angle of + 2n¶ radians. In the Time Region, however, this need not be true. Speaking of spin½ particles Bhandari states: "...studies... bring out the additional fact that phase changes of 2n¶ are real, physical and measurable, something that is often ignored. For example, our experiments make it obvious that the difference between +¶ and ¶ or the difference
between ¶ and 3¶ is measurable and that it is unnatural to restrict the value of the phase that is being continuously monitored to be between 0 and 2¶ . The need to incorporate this unbounded nature of the phase variable presents a promising program for the future."[4]
§3. Nondegenerate Spin
A onedimensional spin is represented by a single spin coordinate, say 1, and could be either {+} or {}. The twodimensional spin requires two spin coordinates, 1 and 2, and is categorized into four domains: {+ +}, { +}, { } and {+ }. From the point of view of the timespace region there is a degeneracy: {+ +} and { } are effectively identical, and { +} and {+ } are effectively identical. However, these four domains remain distinct in the threedimensional zone of the Time Region itself, necessitating a quaternion representation rather than one of an ordinary complex number.
§4. Helicity
Unlike in the case of the onedimensional rotation, there is an internal chirality or handedness arising in the case of the twodimensional rotation out of the multiplication of the two constituent onedimensional rotations. Thus the combinations {+ +} and { } both result in the positive sign and may be treated as Righthanded. In similar manner, the combinations { +} and {+ } both result in the negative sign and may be treated as Lefthanded. The Quantum theorists recognize the existence of this internal chirality when they posit the characteristic of Helicity. They do not, of course, have the benefit of the insight given by the Reciprocal System regarding its origin.
§5. Photon Wave
According to the Reciprocal System the photon is situated permanently in the space unit (of its origin) of the background spacetime progression. As these space units are ever moving scalarly outward, away from one another, no two photons can ever contact each other. However, both may be able to contact a gravitating particle since the latter is moving scalarly inward, and can enter the space unit in which a photon is situated. That bosons, the class of particles of which photon is a member, do not interact with each other is an observed fact. If this is so, one may ask, how do we explain the phenomena like interference and diffraction, wherein the waves associated with the photons are apparently interacting! The answer from the Reciprocal System has already been explained in detail elsewhere[3] where we have shown that the photon interacts with itself, by virtue of the nonlocality feature of the Time Region. The wave associated with the photon is actually in the Time Region and is to be represented by complex vibration rather than a real vibration. The projection on the real axis appears sinusoidal.
§6. Point Particles
The reason why photons and electrons appear to measurement as point particles is this: they are units of rotational spacenot of linear space.
§7. Complex Wave
The wave function of a particle in the onedimensional zone (that is, the zone of onedimensional rotation) of the Time Region is to be represented by a complex wave. This follows from the fact that the equivalent speeds pertaining to this zone that correspond to
the onedimensional speeds of the conventional spatial reference frame (the timespace region) are twodimensional.[2] Thus ={
1
i 2},
where 1 and 2 are real and the symbol i represents the operation of orthogonal rotation, from the real to the imaginary axis, such that i2 = 1. It must be noted that denotes a onedimensional rotation. The probability density as applicable in the timespace region is, of course, given by the square of the modulus,  2 (or * where * is the complex conjugate of ).
§8. Quaternion Wave
What we have called the threedimensional zone of the Time Region is the zone of twodimensional rotation of the atom. We have shown[2] that the equivalent speeds pertaining to this zone that correspond to onedimensional speeds of the timespace region are fourdimensional. Consequently, the wave function germane to this zone needs to be represented by a fourcomponent mathematical object. Since we have represented the onedimensional rotation pertaining to the Time Region by a complex quantity { 1 i 2}, we recognize that to represent twodimensional rotation (pertaining to the Time Region) we need to introduce an additional imaginary dimension j. Thus, replacing 1 and 2 respectively by 1 (={ a j b}) and 2 (={ c j d}) which are complex, we have for the wave function of this zone ={
1
i
2}
= {{
a
j
b} a
i{
c
c
j
d}}
={
a
i
c
j
b ij
d}
={ where we define k = ij, and
a, b, c
i
j
bk
d},
and
d are
all scalar.
As can be seen this is a quaternion, with the following basal elements: the identity operator 1 (which keeps a quantity unchanged) and the three orthogonal rotation operators i, j, and k. The properties of the operators are: 12 = 1; 1i = i1 = i; 1j = j1 = j; 1k = k1 = k; i2 = j2 = k2 = 1; ij = ji = k; jk = kj = i; ki = ik = j. The probability density, once again, is given by * =
2 a
+
2 c
+
b
2
+
2 d .
In the conventional theory the theorists find that the speeds of the nucleons approach the light speed because of the large ‗nuclear‘ interaction energies (on the order of tens of MeV) concerned. In view of these large speeds they find it necessary to resort to the Relativistic Quantum Mechanics. Some of the celebrated theoreticians who worked on the relativization of the wave equation, like Paul Dirac, were led by mathematical necessity to adopt wave functions with four components like we have been talking of.
§9. Dimensionality of Space
In a closed group of operators, like [1 i j k], the result of the combination of any number of the basal elements is also a member of the same group. The result of any such combination can be known only if all the possible binary combinations of the elements are first defined in terms of the basal elements i, j and k themselves (besides, of course, the identity operator, 1). Let there be n basal elements (excluding the unit operator 1) in a group. Then the number of unique binary combinations of these elements, in which no element occurs twice, is n(n1)/2. We can readily see that a group becomes selfsufficient (finite) only if the number of binary combinations of the basal elements is equal to the number of those basal elements themselves, that is n(n1)/2 = n. The only definite solution for n is 3. (Zero and infinity are other solutions.) Therefore if we regard space (time) as a group of orthogonal rotations, its dimensionality has to be three in order to make it selfsufficient dimensionally. Otherwise the number of dimensions either has to shrink to zero, or proliferate to infinity.
References
1. Nehru K.V.K., ―Wave Mechanics in the Light of the Reciprocal System,‖ Reciprocity, Vol. XXII, No. 2, Autumn 1993, pp. 813 2. Nehru K.V.K., ―Quantum Mechanics as the Mechanics of the Time Region,‖ Reciprocity, Vol. XXIV, No. 1, Spring 1995, pp. 19. (See especially Section 5.1) 3. Nehru K.V.K., ―Nonlocality in the Reciprocal System,‖ Reciprocity, Vol. XXVI, No. 1, Spring 1997, pp. 714 4. Bhandari R., ―Geometric Phase in Interference Experiments,‖ Current Science, Vol. 67, No. 4, 25 August 1994, p. 230
HIGH ENERGY PHYSICS AND THE RECIPROCAL SYSTEM
―...during times of crisis new theories arise. Meanwhile, adherents of the old paradigm in crisis fight to retain it against the revolutionaries who are outrageously explaining anomalies by treating nature as if she were a rabbit or squirrel instead of what every selfrespecting scientist knows she is: a duck.‖ J.P.Briggs and F.D.Peat, Looking Glass Universe, p. 28 Great advances in technology in the recent decades of this century have made it possible to amass a wealth of experimental data of unprecedented scope and variety. Theory in the areas of Particle Physics and Astrophysics has been subjected to repeated revisions to cope up with the observed facts. Especially in the field of High Energy Physics (HEP) exciting things have been happening. The Orthodoxy is becoming more tolerant to wild, if not crazy ideas and inventions of thought. In this backdrop, it might be desirable to survey the vicissitudes of the physical theory, hoping that we might learn something from the history.
Little Fleas on Little Fleas on Little Fleas on...
Physicists recognize two revolutionary experiments in the 20th century that resulted in significant revision of the previous ideas about the fundamental particles. One was the Rutherford scattering experiment of 1911, which revealed that the atom was not a uniform solid object it was thought to be, but is largely hollow with a compact solid nucleus which is nearly five orders of magnitude smaller than the atom itself. Subsequent theory conjectured that the nucleus is made up of particles even more fundamental, namely, the protons and the neutrons. The second experiment was the electronproton scattering experiment of 1968 at Stanford. With the probing energies scaled up to the MeV range the scattering pattern revealed that the proton and the neutron were not the solid compact objects they were thought to be, but are largely hollow with extremely compact, pointlike objects inside. The theoreticians named these pointlike particles the quarks. Originally only three quarks (‘u,‘ ‗d‘ and ‗s‘) were invented to explain protons, neutrons and pions. But soon, a theoretical inconsistency cropped up as the unstable hadron resonance known as delta++ was experimentally discovered. According to the existing quark scheme this resonance has to be composed of three uquarks in a configuration that is symmetric under interchange of any two quarks. This, however, was not in accordance with the wellestablished Pauli Exclusion Principle, which states that no two fermions can be in the same quantum state. Therefore, instead of abandoning the quark model, the inconsistency was evaded by inventing purely ad hoc, a new quantum attribute— fancifully called the ‗color‘ charge—which serves to distinguish the three uquarks. That now we have u, d and s quarks each in three color states is, of course, not the end of the story. The discovery in 1974 of the J or psi particle required the positing of a fourth
quark (the ‗c‘), and in 1977 of the Upsilon particle necessitated another quark with a brand new quantum attribute (the ‗b‘). At the present time, we have as the fundamental particles six types of quarks, each in three different color states, along with equal number of antiquarks. In addition, the Standard Model (SM) propounds the existence of six leptons—particles which do not experience the ‗strong‘ force. These are the electron, the muon and the tau particle and their corresponding neutrinos ve, vµ and vT along with, of course, the antiparticles of all of these.
Problems in the Current Theory
Though the SM is a highly successful theory of the HEP and covers the ‗weak,‘ the electromagnetic and the ‗strong‘ interactions, its most flagrant shortcoming is the omission of gravitation. Physicists have come up with the characteristic length at which ‗quantum gravity‘ is expected to manifest as nearly 1035 m. This is seventeen orders of magnitude smaller than the characteristic length of the ‗weak‘ interaction, namely, about 1018 m. Such a stupendous scale difference is quite baffling to them. It is an embarrassing fact that free quarks have never been observed. Consequently it is theorized that interactions between quarks must be extraordinarily strong and perhaps irrevocably confining. The theorists do not know whether quarks are truly fundamental entities or have further structure. Nor do they know if quarks are everlastingly stable or decay spontaneously. Further, the SM contains many parameters, such as the masses of the quarks and leptons, the values of the fundamental charges etc. which cannot be derived from the theory but have to be taken as given. Then there is the generation problem: even though only two quarks (u and d) and two leptons (e and ve) occur preponderantly in nature, yet nature possesses two more copies (four more quarks and four more leptons) of this basic structure, which latter are assumed to be relevant, if at all, in the first few seconds after the socalled Bigbang. Occurrence of infinities plagues the mathematics of the theory, at the various levels of the energy ranges. Solving one problem introduces new problems at the new levels. For instance, solving the mass problem of the ‗weak‘ bosons, W± and Z0, by the Higgs mechanism involves the prediction of a new particle—the Higgs boson—the experimental discovery of which is an outstanding problem. The concept of supersymmetry—wherein all bosons have fermionic superpartners and vice versa—is invented to circumvent the infinities. However, in the bargain, a host of new particles are predicted, generating new ignorances at the same rate as developing new understanding. Finally, the theorists are investing great hopes in the superstring theories, in which onedimensional singularities, instead of pointlike particles, are envisaged as the ultimate constituents of the universe. Supersymmetry is an essential ingredient of the theory. One of the problems besetting the superstring theory is the occurrence of several versions of it, without a clear hint of the actual one. The theory requires the superstrings to exist in large number of spacetime dimensions (like 10). This requires figuring out ways of reducing the superabundance of the dimensions. Vindication of these ideas comes from experimental confirmation and the future of HEP is threatened by a serious crisis. The range of energies that would be needed to test the
new theories is 105 to 1019 GeV. The known acceleration technologies can take us up to the 104 GeV level in the coming decade. Beyond that, the veterans in the field fear that the HEP is near its end. The deepening crisis is making the physicists look for unconventional ideas, no matter how weird they might appear. Unfortunately, they are looking for these new ideas still within the ambit of the old paradigm only. They seem to be committing the mistake of the proverbial drunkard, who was found searching in the middle of the night, right under the street light, for something he lost in the darkness beyond! Recognition of the truth of the Reciprocal System of theory, which is based on a totally new basic paradigm, is getting procrastinated because it upsets some of our most cherished notions. But this is what a paradigm change at the most basic level is bound to do. Planck‘s discovery of the quantum nature of energy is a good example. It was greeted with indifference and disbelief, if not open hostility.
The Deepening Crisis
It is now apparent that applying iteratively the program that ‗particles are built out of more fundamental particles‘ has resulted in the proliferation of ‗fundamental‘ particles and led us from complex theory to more complex theory. The situation is reminiscent of the accumulation of epicycles in the Ptolemaic system. Once again it might be pointing out to us, if we are able to take the hint, that the basic paradigm underlying the whole edifice of the HEP has been wrong. Particle physicists have innovated the concept of force, which was originally defined as acceleration times mass. The idea of actionatadistance was repugnant to the modern scientist who thought it was spooky and belonged to the dark era of scientific ignorance. He rather believed in the localness of interaction: a force could be passed on from A to B only if A is physically touching (contiguous in space to) B, or through some other thing touching both. This belief logically led him to the idea of ‗exchange force,‘ that when two entities are separated in space a force could be transmitted between them only through the intermediary of a particle—the field quantum—propagating in space. This is part of the paradigm on which the superstructure of modern physics has been erected. The physicists have even disregarded factual information from their own field and subscribed unstintingly to this paradigm. For example, there is no empirical evidence that gravitation is propagated at finite speed or that it is propagated at all. But current Orthodoxy presumes that gravitation has a field quantum, the graviton, and that it propagates at the speed of light. Meanwhile a new factor has emerged into the situation. Carefully conducted experiments in the recent decades have established beyond doubt that quantum nonlocality is a fact— particles widely separated in space are able to influence each other, without the need for any medium or intermediary and without any effects of attenuation by distance, even when they are beyond each other‘s light cone. Since this is a factual finding, it must be incorporated into whichever theory of physics that might come into ascendancy if it has to be true. Notwithstanding these developments HEP has continued on its program of building particles out of more fundamental particles, postulating at each structural level the existence of ‗carriers of interaction‘—the mesons, the ‗intermediate vector bosons,‘ the
gluons and the like. Now the question arises whether there is a way to build physical theory basing on established facts including nonlocality without having to reintroduce the unacceptable spooky actionatadistance? Well, this is exactly what Larson has accomplished!
The New Paradigm
Larson has laid out, in his published works16 the general outline of his theory, covering all the physical fields. All of the phenomena whose origin is a mystery in the current theory—like that of the high energy cosmic rays—come out as logical deductions from his fundamental Postulates about the characteristics of motion. He has carried out the development far enough to establish a prima facie case for a general theory. However, considerable amount of theoretical work still needs to be done to extend the application of the Reciprocal System to greater detail. Following the lead given by observational facts, and not based on speculations, Larson has endeavored to review the entire physical situation and come up with a new structure of physical theory, which has come to be called The Reciprocal System of theory. Larson‘s principal finding is that the physical universe is composed entirely of discrete units of motion. Space and time occur only as the two reciprocal aspects of motion and are quantized. In the new paradigm, spacetime plays the role of the
GRAVITATIONAL DEFLECTION OF LIGHT BEAM IN THE RECIPROCAL SYSTEM
The gravitational deflection of light beam owes its origin to the same factor as that causing the excess perihelion precession of the planets—namely, the coordinate time component associated with independent motion [1]. But there is a significant difference between the movement of a planet and the movement of a photon in the sun‘s gravitational field. In the former case, the motion of the planet is an independent motion. On the other hand, the motion of the photon is due to the background spacetime progression and is introduced by our use of the stationary reference system. This has an important bearing on the manner in which the spatial effect of the coordinate time manifests itself in the motion, in the two cases, as will be explained below.
Gravitational Motion and the Gravitational Potential
The gravitational motion of a material atom is inward in space. But in a celestial object like a star, which is a spatial aggregate of such units, the inward motion of each unit is counterbalanced by the interaction with the contiguous neighbors. The scalar spacetime direction of this counterbalancing force is in opposition to that of gravity and has the same magnitude as the gravitational motion and is equal to the escape velocity, v, at that location. The escape velocity can be evaluated by noting that the centrifugal force on a mass m situated at a radial distance r will be equal to the gravitational force on it by the central mass M. Thus m v²/r = G Mm/r² or, v² = GM/r where G is the gravitational constant. (1)
Coordinate Time
The coordinate time increase associated with a speed v is given by v²/c² fraction of unit/unit (2)
This is in the radial direction of the counterbalancing force explained in the para above [2]. Let the radial distance of the photon at its closest approach to the sun be r0. Since v² is a point function of the radial distance given by eq. (1), the increase in the coordinate time for a change of radial distance from the ―outer gravitational limit‖ [3] to r0 will be given by
g0
= (v0²/c²)  0 = v0²/c²
(3)
(where v0² = GM/r0. The circumferential space equivalent [2] of this coordinate time increase is v0²/c². But the photon is already moving at unit speed—one unit of space per unit of time—in the forward dimension. As such no further spatial shift is possible in the direction of its motion (unlike in the case of the planetary motion). However, in view of
its scalar nature, the spatial effect of this coordinate time increase will manifest itself in a spatial dimension other than the one in which the photon is already progressing at unit speed. Thus the photon gets displaced in the inward radial direction coinciding with the direction of gravity. Now the question arises why this effect should manifest radially inward instead of radially outward direction. The situation here can be easily understood if we look to an analogy from the motoring/generation principle in electrical engineering. Current flowing in a particular direction, in the conductor of a motor armature situated in a magnetic field forces the armature to rotate. But the rotation of the conductor (in the same magnetic field) now generates what we call the ―back e.m.f.‖ and causes a current flow in the conductor in the opposite direction (opposing the original current), establishing a natural equilibrium. Analogously, in the present case, the coordinate time increase resulting from a radially outward equilibrium motion manifests as a circumferential spatial shift. While this gives rise to the excess perihelion motion in the case of orbitting planets, in the case of the photon such motion not being possible, the spatial shift, v0²/c², shows up in the radial direction opposite to that of the originating motion: that is, it manifests in the radially inward direction. We have so far considered the increase in coordinate time only during half of the transit, from the outer gravitational limit to r0. The coordinate time change associated with the remaining journey, from r0 onwards to the outer gravitational limit on the other side, will similarly be
g0
= (0  v0²/c²) =  v0²/c²
(4)
This will again manifest as a spatial shift of magnitude v0²/c². It must be noted that the negative sign of the coordinate time increase, in eq. (4) above, has no relevance in deciding the direction of its spatial effect. The spatial effect is always additive, irrespective of the sign of the coordinate time because of the scalar nature of the reiation between the dimensions of time and the dimensions of space. Thus the total spatial shift in the direction perpendicular to that of progression is given by
0
=
v0²/c²
(5)
in fraction of unit/unit or simply the deflection in radians.
Interaction Crosssection
However, this deflection, given by eq. (5) is not necessarily effective in its entirety. This requires the consideration of the way in which an independent motion, as against the fictitious motion of the spacetime progression, can be brought to bear on a photon or a material particle. An independent motion can be imparted to a material atom, for example, because it can offer a resistance in the direction of the motion being applied. The resistance to motion is due to the speed displacement in that dimension. For instance, the reason why we don‘t find subatomic particles participating in the scalar inversion from the cosmic sector to the material sector, which gives us the cosmic rays, is that they are unable to build up speed in the vacant dimension in which they do not have any
displacement. In contradistinction, the motion of the spacetime progression applies in the vacant dimension, as in the case of a photon, for example. As such, in the present case, the full force of the deflection motion is applicable to the photon only if the plane of vibration of the photon is parallel to the deflection motion: that is, if it is in the direction of the gravity. Let us take a look at the photon in the direction of its progression. Referring to the figure, let the direction perpendicular to the plane of the paper represent the direction of the photon progression. The diameter of the circle is one natural unit of space representing the amplitude of the photon vibration. Any diameter of the circle, like PP, now represents the plane of vibration of the photon (looking endon). OD is the direction of the deflection motion. Suppose the photon vibration happens to be in the YD direction, the full impact of the deflection motion, 0 , can be imparted to it. On the other hand, if the plane of vibration is XB, since the photon does not carry any displacement in the YD direction, none of the deflection motion can be imparted to the photon. In fact, when the plane is tilted at an angle ø to YD, the fraction of the deflection motion that can be transferred to the photon is proportional to cos ø. In an unpolarized beam all orientations are equally existent and the average value of the resistance—which I will call the ―interaction crosssection‖—that makes the motion transfer possible can be obtained by ½ p(ø) cosø dø ½ ————————— (½ (½ 2 = —
p
(6)
So finally, from eqs. (5) (6), the total effective deflection is = v0²/c²) · (2/ ) = v0²/c² (7)
Or, using eq. (1), we have = GM r0c²) (8)
Polarized Beam
It may be noted that the above result is identical to what General Relativity predicts. However, the result differs from the Relativity value in the case of a polarized beam of radiation. Consider the case of a fully polarized beam. Let the piane of polarization be represented by PP (fig. 1), inclined at angle ø to the direction of gravity, YD From what has been said above, the total effective gravitational deflection will be
p
=
v²/c² cos ø = 2 (GM/r0c²) cos ø
(9)
In the more general case where the degree of polarization in each direction varies, we proceed as follows. Let the power p in any plane (of polarization) be a function of the tilt angle ø: p = p (ø). Then the average interaction crosssection is given by ½ p(ø) cosø dø ½ ————————— ½ p(ø) dø ½
p
(10)
The total effective deflection, then, is
p
=
0
·
p
This aspect of the theory, namely, the dependence of the gravitational deflection on the polarization characteristics of the traversing beam provides a possibility to observationally test it in comparison with the theory of Relativity.
References
1. Larson, Dewey B., Nothing But Motion, North Pacific Pub., Portland, Oregon, 1979, pp. 99–100. 2. Larson, Dewey B., Beyond Newton, North Pacific Pub., Portland, Oregon, 1964, p. 126. 3. Larson, Dewey B., Quasars and Pulsars, North Pacific Pub., Portland, Oregon, 1971, p. 166.
NEW LIGHT ON THE GRAVITATIONAL DEFLECTION OF RADIATION PATH
In an earlier paper I have discussed the effect of gravitation on the bending of the locus of a photon.(1) Even though the role played by the coordinate time associated with the gravitational motion in deflecting the path of light was correctly depicted therein, I believe that the mathematical implications were not correctly brought out. Especially, in the case of equation (6) there, though its existence was correctly recognized, its physical significance was misconstrued. The present paper, therefore, attempts to overcome these shortcomings and derives the mathematical expression for the angle through which the path of a light beam is deflected in the vicinity of a mass. According to the Reciprocal System, an independent motion of speed v has associated with it an increase in the coordinate time amounting to (v/c)² sec/sec (c being the speed of light). In the case of a onedimensional motion, like that of a planet orbitting the sun, or of a photon grazing the sun‘s limb, I have pointed out(2) that the circumferential spatial effect arising out of the coordinate time amounts to 3(v/c)² sec/sec. It was further explained that, in the case of a photon this spatial effect manifests itself in the radially inward direction since no further circumferential effect is possible, as the photon is already moving at unit speed in the latter direction.(3) The gravitational speed v at any radial distance r from a mass M is shown(4) to be v² = GM/r where G is the gravitational constant. Thus, we have the rate of coordinate time increase at a radial distance r outside a mass M as dtc/dt = 3(v/c)² = 3 GM/rc² where tc represents the coordinate time and t the clock time. (1)
As shown in Fig. 1, let the straight line ABC represent the locus of a photon passing the sun situated at S. With SB perpendicular to AC, B is the point of closest approach to the
sun. Let SB = ro. The equation of the line ABC in polar coordinates, with the origin at S, is given by r0 = r cos (2)
where r is the radial distance at any angle q measured counterclockwise from SB. Substituting r from eq. (2) into eq. (1), we have dtc/dt = (3 GM/roc²) cos (3)
Now we note that the gravitational effect of any mass aggregate, according to the Reciprocal system, does not extend up to infinity, but becomes zero at a limiting distance, which Larson calls the ―outer gravitational limit,‖ d1. As such, we need to compute the coordinate time increase in the case of the transitting photon, starting from the outer gravitational limit on one side (toward A, in Fig. 1), up to the outer gravitational limit on the other side (toward C, in Fig.1). Larson worked out the value of the outer gravitational limit for the sun to be nearly 13350 light years. As this will be very large compared to ro, we find that the limits on the two sides are given by 1 = – /2 and 2 = + /2. Hence, using eq. (3), the average rate of coordinate time increase during this transit from 1 to 2 is given by dtc — dt
2
av
(
1
dtc —— d / ( dt
2

1
)
/2 = (3 GM/roc²)  /2 = 6 GM/ ro c² t = 2 d1/c sec/sec sec (4) (5) cos d /
Since the total distance traveled is 2 d1, the total transit time is
Therefore the total coordinate time gained during this clock time t is dtc tc,tot = t * — dt = 12 GM d1/ = (6 GM/ av ro c³ sec ro c²)*(2d1/c)
(6)
In Fig. 2 the directions of approach and departure of the light beam are shown as ABC‘ and BC respectively. CC‘ represents the spatial shift in the radial direction arising out of the coordinate time component and is given by x = c * tc,tot = 12 GM d1/¹ ro c² cm (7)
Finally, from Fig. 2 we can see that the angular deflection, according to the Reciprocal System is given by dRS = x/d1 = 12 GM/ ro c² radians (8)
The corresponding expression from General Relativity is dGR = 4 GM/ro c² (9)
The discrepancy between the two formulae can be seen to be dRS/dGR = 3/ (10)
The value calculated from the Reciprocal System formula, for the sun, is 1.67 arcsec, whereas the General Relativity value is 1.75 arcsec. The reported values vary from 1.5 to 1.8 arcsec.
References
1. K.V.K. Nehru, ―Gravitational Deflection of a Light Beam in the Reciprocal System,‖ Reciprocity XI(1) (Spring, 1981), 28. 2. Idem, ―Precession of Planetary Perihelia due to Coordinate Time,‖ Reciprocity XIV(1) (Autumn, 1985), 1113. 3. Idem, ―Gravitational Deflection. . .‖ op. cit., 29. 4. Ibid., eq. (1), p. 28. 5. D. B. Larson, The Universe of Motion (Portland, Ore.: North Pacific Publishers, 1984), p. 201.
GRAVITATIONAL REDSHIFT ACCORDING TO THE RECIPROCAL SYSTEM
If the frequency of a photon is f ‘, at a location where the gravitational potential is GM/r, then according to Relativity the gravitational redshift is given by zg = (f ‘ f)/f = GM/rc² where f G r c = frequency of the radiation in its inertial rest frame = gravitational constant = radial distance of the photon, and = speed of light. (1)
M = mass of the object
The account of the gravitational redshift in the Reciprocal System may be given as follows: The gravitational motion of any material particle is inward in space, toward all other spacetime locations. In a celestial object such as a star, which is an aggregate of such material units, this scalar inward motion of the individual units is counterbalanced by the physical continguity of the neighboring units. This counterbalancing force is in the scalar direction of the spacetime progression, being opposite to gravity, and has the same magnitude as that of the gravitational motion at that location. Thus its measure is equal to the escape velocity, v. Now, we can identify the coordinate time increase at a particular location to be v²/c² (in fractions of units/unit), just like in the case of excess perihelion shift. This means that the total time involved per unit of clocktime is [1 + (v²/c²)] units. The frequency, f, denotes the number of oscillations per unit of time in a gravityfree situation. In the location under gravity, then, this frequency becomes f number of oscillations per [1 + (v²/c²)] units of time. Thus f ‘ = f/(1 + (v²/c²), or f ‘/f = 1/[1 + (v²/c²)] Therefore, the redshift is zg = f ‘/f  1 = (v²/c²)/[1+ (v²/c²)] (3) (2)
Comparison of the Results of the Two Theories
The escape velocity, v, is evaluated as follows: The centrifugal force on a mass m rotating at the orbital speed of v at radius r is equal to the gravitational force by the central mass M, under equilibrium situation. Thus mv²/r = G Mm/r², i.e., v² = GM/r Substituting this in eq. (1) and rearranging, we have, according to Relativity, (4)
f ‘/f = 1  (v²/c²)
(5)
Comparing this with eq (2) we can see that 1  v²/c² 1 + (v²/c²)1 for small values of v. The divergence between them can be detected only (i) if the present experimental accuracies can be improved by many orders of magnitude, or (ii) if the test could be carried out for extremely large gravitational potentials such as encountered in the white dwarfs etc.
PRECESSION OF THE PLANETARY PERIHELIA DUE TO COORDINATE TIME
1. Introduction
The first of the two Fundamental Postulates of the Reciprocal System from which Larson derives every aspect of the physical universe is: ―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.‖ [1] The primary implication of the Postulate is that the properties of either space or time are the properties of both space and time, except that space and time are reciprocally related as motion. This means, inter alia, that space is a progression like time is, and that time is threedimensional. While the space progression is observable as the recession of distance galaxies, the threedimensionality of time is not so directly apparent. It is essential to note that the three dimensions of time are not the spatial dimensions: nor is there anything spacelike in them. In any situation, the total time comprises of two components: (i) the clock time, which is a uniform progression and (ii) the threedimensional coordinate time (analogous to the threedimensional coorinate space of a stationary reference system). Besides other things, the concept of coordinate time in the Reciprocal System explains and derives the characteristics of supernovae, the white dwarfs, the pulsars, the quasars, the compact Xray sources and the cosmic rays–without taking recourse to concepts like degenerate matter, the curvature of spacetime, etc... All the socalled Relativistic effects come out, in the Reciprocal System, of the existence of this additional time component. In fact, the effect of the excess advance of the perihelion of an orbiting planet arises out of the accumulation of the coordinate time from its orbital motion. ―As long as the orbital velocity is low, the difference between the clock time and the total time is negligible, but the velocity of Mercury is great enough to introduce an appreciable amount of coordinate time and during this added time the planet travels through an additional distance.”[2]
2. The Theoretical Evaluation
According to the Reciprocal System, an independent motion (like gravitation) of speed v has associated with it an increase of coordinate time amounting to v²/c² unit per each unit of clock time (c being the speed of light). [3] In order to calculate the excess orbital movement, Larson argues like this: ―Since the gravitational motion is inward, the scalar spacetime direction of the orbital motion is outward, and the computed time increase is radial. To obtain the circumferential space equivalent of this linear time increase, we must multiply by ¶.‖[4] Thus, according to Larson the total coordinate time increase is ¶ v²/c² s/s. In the quotation just cited, what Larson states regarding the scalar direction of the orbital motion as being
outward, is understandable. But what the expression ―the computed time increase is radial‖ is expected to connote is difficult to see. For, ―...no matter how many dimensions it may have, time has no direction in space.‖ [5] To be sure, it is true that time has a property called ‗direction in time‘, but this is a purely temporal property and ‗directions in time‘are not in any way determined by directions in space. Consequently, the coordinate time increase associated with gravitation (or with any independent motion) is a scalar addition. The words ―...to obtain the circumferential space equivalent of this linear time increase, we multiply by ¶,‖ do not, therefore, depict the truth, except pointing out that the necessity of having to include in the calculations a factor amounting to ¶ has been recognized. The true state of affairs can be understood if we recall that gravitation is a threedimensional scalar motion. If v is the gravitational speed, then the coordinate time increase per each scalar dimension is v²/c². The total coordinate time increase, therefore, is 3 v²/c². The orbital motion of the planet is onedimensional (scalar). As such, the effective coordinate time increase, as applied to the orbital motion, is 3 v²/c². The same is true in any other case where the motion is onedimensional, like, for example, that of a photon grazing the sun. On the other hand, if we are considering the effect of the coordinate time increase due to gravitation on an atom situated in the gravitational field, the result is different. Since the atomic rotation is threedimensional, the coordinate time increase effective per dimension is 3 v²/c² / 3 = v²/c² only. This is the value which causes the gravitational redshift, for instance. Thus, the rate of coordinate time increase at any speed v is given by:
where tc represents the coordinate time and t the clock time. Consider the elliptical orbit of a planet around the sun, with the sun situated at the focus. The equation of the ellipse in polar coordinates, with the center at the focus is given by
where r = the radial distance of the planet, at any angle ø measured from the perihelion l = the semilatus rectum = a (1  e²) (2a) e = the eccentricity of the ellipse a = the semimajor axis In an earlier article [6] I have pointed out that the gravitational speed, v, at any distance r outside of a mass M is given by
where G = the gravitational constant. Using equations (1), (2), & (3), we have the rate of coordinate time increase at a given location on the orbit as
in units of s/s or radians/radians. The incrase over an angle of dø radians is
Therefore, the total increase from ø = 0 to 2 ¶ radians (that is, one revolution) is
(Note that equation (7) is applicable to parabolic, as well as hyperbolic orbits with l as the semilatus rectum). Finally, using relation (2a), the perihelion advance, according to the Reciprocal System, is given by
The corresponding formula from the General Relativity is
where P = the orbital period of the planet. In order to compare the two formulae, we use the relation
for the solar system. Then equation (8) becomes identical to the Relativity expression, given in equation (9).
References
1. Larson, Dewey B., Nothing But Motion (North Pacific Publishers, Portland, OR, 1979), page 30. 2. Larson, Dewey B., Beyond Newton (North Pacific Publishers, Portland, OR, 1964), page 85. 3. Larson, Dewey B., Nothing But Motion, op. cit., pages 99100. 4. Larson, Dewey B., Beyond Newton, op. cit., page 126. 5. Larson, Dewey B., Nothing But Motion, op. cit., page 73. 6. Nehru, K.V.K., ―Gravitational Deflection of Light Beam in the Reciprocal System,‖ Reciprocity XI (1), Spring 1981, page 28.
GLIMPSES INTO THE STRUCTURE OF THE SUN PART 1 THE NATURE STELLAR MATTER
1. Introduction
Larson has discussed the development of the Reciprocal System of Physical Theory to a great extent in his two works, Nothing But Motion [1] and The Universe of Motion, [2] the latter work especially dealing with the astronomical applications. Stars are the basic building blocks of the largescale universe. As such, the knowledge of their internal constitution and dynamics constitutes an important step in the understanding of the macroscopic universe. Larson developed the general structure and the details of evolution of the stars of various types. [2] The detailed study of their internal structure has not yet been carried out in the context of the Reciprocal System. Therefore, such a study was taken up as an initial attempt to fill this gap and some of the results obtained are reported herein. In Part I, we will discuss the general properties of matter at very high temperatures, applying the principles and concepts developed by Larson in his works cited. Since the sun is the only star about which a wealth of obserational information is available in great detail, an attempt is made to explain some of the solar phenomena–phenomena so well known but whose nature is by no means clearly understood by the scientists–utilizing the conclusions reached in Part I. This is reported in Part II. It is hoped that these will be found interesting to the researchers of the Reciprocal System and stimulate further investigations. According to the Reciprocal System, the energy generation in the stars is by the atomic disintegration process. [3] Larson shows how the operation of this source at the central regions of the stars gives rise to a fluctuating energy output, its periodicity showing up even in the case of the stable stars, though not as conspicuously as in the case of the intrinsic variables. Thus, he attributes the 11year periodicity of the sun to this fluctuation of the internal energy generation. [4] The basic scalar motion that constitutes the material atoms is a speed displacement in time. Both the thermal motion and the electric charge of the atoms are displacements in space. At a large enough temperature, called the thermal destructive limit, the combined space displacement due to the thermal motion and the positive electric ionization is sufficient to neutralize one of the rotational time displacement units constituting the atom and reduce it to the linear status (radiation). Preliminary calculations indicate that the thermal limit of the elements is greater than two natural units of temperature. [5] Accordingly, the material in the central region of a star has to be at temperatures beyond the unit level, and this gives rise to significant results as explained below.
2. Discovery of a New Source of Magnetism
Larson refers to the speeds in the range of one to two natural units as the intermediate speeds, and those above two units as the ultra high speeds. In a similar manner, we will
refer to the temperatures greater than one natural unit, but less than two natural units, as intermediate temperatures, and those beyond as ultra high temperatures. In addition, we will call the temperatures below the unit level as the low temperatures. This connotation of ―low‖ will be used throughout our discussion, and must be so remembered. In the intermediate range, the motion is in time instead of space. However, where the net total motion is still in space, the motion due to the intermediate speed component will be in the space equivalent of time, that is, in equivalent space. [6] As such, the effects of the thermal motion when the temperature is in the intermediate speed range, are in equivalent space, rather than in the space of the conventional reference system. An important, direct consequence is that this thermal motion would be twodimensional, as is all motion in equivalent space. [7] In view of the fact that both the thermal motion, and the motion constituting the positive electric charge, are of the same type–namely, onedimensional vibratory space displacements (except that the former is a linear vibration, and the latter is a rotational vibration), thermal motion readily engenders electric ionization when present in sufficient intensity. This thermal ionization, of course, is a known phenomenon. In a similar manner, the thermal motion in the intermediate range, being of a twodimensional linear vibratory space displacement, readily produces on the basic units of matter present, a twodimensional rotational vibration, with space displacement. We can immediately recognize that the latter, namely the twodimensional rotational vibration with space displacement, is nothing but the magnetic charge! Thus, throughout the stellar interiors, where the thermal motion is above the unit level, magnetic fields of intensity proportional to the strength of the thermal motions are always generated. Instead of relegating the role of the magnetic fields as minor, we now find that the presence and configuration of these thermally generated magnetic fields largely determine the structure and dynamics of the stellar phenomena. Since the interiors of all stars have to be at temperatures above the unit value if energy generation by thermal destruction is to take place at all, intense magnetic fields must invariably be present in all of them. This does not, however, mean that these fields reach up to the stellar surface in their full intensity. Only few field lines seem to penetrate through the outer bulk of material that is at lower (that is, less than the unit) temperature, as we will see later. While fields as strong as 10,000 gauss might be generated at the core, the surface field may be of the order of tens of gauss to a fraction of a gauss.
3. Nature of the Matter and Radiation at Very High Temperatures
We will now summarize some important conclusions reached by Larson, and add our own discussion to their further implications concerning the states of matter and radiation at the upper range speeds.
3.1 The Radiation Intensity
Larson states:
―...thermal radiation originates from linear motion of the small constituents of the material aggregates in the dimension of the spatial reference system. The effective magnitude of this motion is measured as temperature.‖ ―Inasmuch as motion at intermediate speeds is in the same scalar dimension as the motion at speeds below unity, the vibrational motion that produces the thermal radiation continues into the upper speed ranges. But because of the reversal at the unit speed level, the temperature gradient in the intermediate region is inverse; that is, the maximum intensity of the thermal vibration, and the resulting radiation, is at the unit speed level, and it decreases in both direction.‖[8] In the intermediate region, an increase in temperature (equivalent to a decrease in inverse temperature) decreases the thermal radiation. As a consequence of this, if we try to identify a thermal source at the upper end of the intermediate temperature range by observing the intensity of its radiation, it would appear to be at a low temperature, of an order that is not beyond the ken of terrestrial experience. A further fact of significance is that, ―...all radiation from objects with upper range speeds ... is polarized as emitted. Where a lower polarization is observed, this is due to depolarizing effects during travel of the radiation. A threedimensional distribution of radiation is impossible in a twodimensional region.‖ [9]
3.2 The Inverse States of Matter 3.2.1 Radiation Spectrum
―Furthermore, the radiating units of matter are confined within one unit of time, at the upper end of the intermediate temperature range (the lowest inverse temperatures), just as they are confined within one unit of space at the lower end of the normal temperature range.‖[10] ―The physical state of this material is the temporal equivalent of the solid state: a condition in which the atoms occupy fixed positions in threedimensional time, and the emission is modified in the same manner as in the solid state.‖ [9] This radiation has a continuous spectrum.
3.2.2 Analogy Between the Phenomena of the Time Region and Those Space Region
of the
Corresponding to the three states of matter in the low temperature range–solid, liquid, and gaseous–there ought to be three more states in the intermediate temperature range, which we may call the inverse gas, the inverse liquid, and the inverse solid, in that order of increasing temperature (decreasing inverse temperature). In order to see how the effects of motion in the space region (occuring at the far end of the intermediate speed range) manifest themselves to observation in the timespace region (the conventional threedimensional, spatial reference system), we will first consider how the effects of motion in the time region are known to manifest in the timespace region, and then draw an analogy. We can tabulate:
Motion Originating In the time region
Effects as manifested in the conventional reference frame (i) discontinuous (or limited in extent) in the space of the reference system (ii) continuous in the time of the reference system
In the space region
(iii) discontinuous (or limited in extent) in the time of the reference system (iv) continuous in the space of the reference system
An example of the time region phenomena is the crystal or grain of the solid state–which is of limited spatial extent, but exists continually in time. In the case of the space region phenomena, in view of item No. (iii) tabulated above, the spatial aggregations of the atoms concerned do not persist continually: they keep forming and dissolving into fresh, new aggregates.
3.2.3 The Lifetimes
The lifetimes of these space region aggregates, that is, the times elapsed before they dissolve to give place to new aggregates, depends upon the rate at which the heat transfer is taking place. In the case of solidification from liquid to solid state, a high heat transfer rate produces smaller grain size (more number of grains per unit of space). In the case of the inverse states we are considering, this should result in less number of ―grains‖ per unit of time. This means that the lifetimes are longer with higher heat transfer rates.
3.2.4 The Spatial Configuration
The motion in time has no direction in space, and does not manifest as a movement of individual atoms, as such, in space. However, there are some observable effects on aggregates of atoms. For instance, the scalar direction of thermal motion is always outward. The expansion in time resulting from the intermediate temperature shows up as a contraction in equivalent space. Or conversely, if matter at the upper temperature ranges is cooling to the low temperature region, we would expect it to expand. We will have occasion to refer to this phenomenon in the context of sunspots, later.
3.3 Thredules: the Seventh State of Matter
We have seen how the intermediate range temperatures give rise to three more states of matter–the inverse states, as we are calling them–in addition to the three known states pertaining to the low temperature range. The entry of the temperature into the ultra high range, beyond the twounit limit, results in a yet another, seventh, state of matter. The third unit of motion is already beyond the twounit limit of the dimension of scalar motion that is coincident with the dimension of the conventional spatial reference system.
It pertains to a second scalar dimension incapable of representation in the conventional reference system. But: ―...some of the change of position due to the unobservable ultra high speeds is represented in the reference system in an indirect manner... the outward motion of the ultra high speed... is applied to overcoming the inward gravitational motion... . Inasmuch as that gravitational motion has altered the position (in the reference system) of the matter..., elimination of the gravitational motion results in a movement of this matter back to the spatial position that it would have occupied if the gravitational motion had not taken place. Since it reverses a motion in the reference system, this elimination of the gravitational change of position is observable.‖ [11] ―Thus, even though the speeds of the particles... are in the ultra high range, the observable thermal effect is in the low speed range, and the radiation that is produced has a line spectrum like that of an ordinary hot gas.‖ [9] ―Inasmuch as the spatial motion component of the ultra high speed motion is in a second scalar dimension, it is perpendicular to the normal dimension of the reference system. This perpendicular line cannot rotate in a third dimension because the threedimensional structure does not exist beyond the unit speed level. Thus the representation of the motion in the reference system is confined to a fixed line...‖ ―... this type of motion does not distinguish between the direction AB and the direction BA, since the only inherent property of the motion is a magnitude... any linear motion originating at a given point is therefore divided equally between two opposite directions by the operation of probability.‖ [12] The matter at ultra high temperature, therefore, takes the shape of a sheaf of expanding rectilinear threads. We will call these unidirectional filaments ‗thredules.‘ There is ample observational evidence of this slender, threadlike structure associated with the ultra high speeds like in the cases of the remnants of Type II supernovae, [13] and quasar explosions. [14] Before passing on to the next section, we must mention that since beyond the unit temperature the magnetic field is a concomitant phenomenon, we find that every thredule is invariably associated with magnetic flux lines running along its longitudinal axis.
4. Magnetism and CoMagnetism
In section 2 we have seen how the upper range temperatures generate magnetism. The basic motion constituting this magnetic charge is a twodimensional space displacement of rotational vibration type, and so is the same as that of a magnetic charge in the material sector, in general. However, the fact that the thermallygenerated magnetism we have been considering occurs in equivalent space, rather than the space of the conventional reference system, introduces a new element into the situation that produces some unfamiliar effects as viewed from that reference system.
4.1 The Lines of Force
It is usual to try to understand the action of magnetic charges with the help of the concept of ―lines of force.‖ This is a legitimate practice inasmuch as force is a property of scalar motion, as Larson explains. [15] Referring to Figure 1a, we see that the magnetic lines of force are in tension in the longitudinal direction, and have a positive pressure in the transverse direction; that is, they tend to contract along their length, and to diverge out in the perpendicular direction.
Figure 1  Magnetic vs Comagnetic Lines of Force Because the direction, in the context of the conventional reference system, reverses whenever a motion crosses a unit boundary (even though it continues in the same natural direction), the behavior of the magnetic lines of force in the equivalent space would be as shown in Figure 1b. They tend to expand in the longitudinal direction, and to concentrate in the transverse direction. In other words, like poles attract and unlike poles repel (see Figures 2a and 2b). In view of this reversal of the apparent directions, we will give this phenomenon a new name, and call it comagnetism.
Figure 2  Magnetic vs Comagnetic Poles
4.2 Domain Configurations of Magnetism and Comagnetism
We will now highlight some significant patterns of the field line arrangements that are derived from the nature of magnetism and comagnetism respectively, as these will have a bearing on the explanation of the magnetic field structure of the sun.
Figure 3  Least Energy Configuration Consider two pairs of parallel field lines, with the field directions as shown in Figure 3a. Let us refer to the field line coming out of the plane of the paper and represented by a plus sign as the ―north line‖ and the one antiparallel to it, and represented by the minus sign, as the ―south line.‖As can be seen from the figure, in the case of normal magnetism, two parallel north (or south) lines repel each other, while north and south lines attract each other. If we now imagine a process that generates equal numbers of south and north lines, all of which remain parallel to each other, but are free to move in the lateral direction, the least energy configuration would be one in which there are no largescale magnetic domains, as shown in Figure 4a.
Figure 4  Least Energy Arrangement Turning now to the case of comagnetism, we find that two north (or south) lines attract each other, while north and south lines repel each other (Figure 3b). Suppose that in a comagnetic process, equal numbers of north and south lines are generated in such a way that they are constrained to remain parallel to each other, but are free to migrate laterally. If initially the south and north lines are randomly distributed in space, lines of the same type tend to aggregate and form separate magnetic domains. At the same time, domains of opposite polarity tend to repel each other and move apart (see Figure 4b). If the total volume in which these domains exist is restricted, then the eventual result of the gradual merging of the domains of the same polarity would be the complete bifurcation into two domains of opposite polarity.
5. Summary of Part I
Summing up some important conclusions reached regarding the structure of matter at very high temperatures:
1. Matter in the ultra high temperature range manifests as slender, unidirectional, expanding threads that keep forming and dissolving. These have been named Thredules. 2. Thermal motion beyond unit level produces magnetic fields. 3. Inasmuch as these fields are in equivalent space, the magnetic effects in the threedimensional reference system are the opposite of the normal magnetic effects. This phenomenon is named Comagnetism. References 1. Larson, Dewey B., Nothing But Motion (North Pacific Publishers, Portland, OR, 1979) 2. Larson, Dewey B., Universe of Motion (North Pacific Publishers, Portland, OR, 1984) 3. ibid., page 41. 4. ibid., pages 6162. 5. Nehru, K.V.K., "Intrinsic Variables, Supernovae and the Thermal Limit," Reciprocity XVII (1), Spring, 1988, page 20. 6. Larson, Dewey B., Universe of Motion, op cit., pages 7073. 7. Larson, Dewey B., Nothing But Motion, op.cit., page 155. 8. Larson, Dewey B., Universe of Motion, op cit., page 215. 9. ibid., page 224. 10. ibid., page 215216. 11. ibid., page 213. 12. ibid., page 214. 13. ibid., page 223. 14. ibid., page 364. 15. Larson, Dewey B., The Neglected Facts of Science (North Pacific Publishers, Portland, OR, 1982), pages 912. 16. Sakurai, Kunitomo, Physics of Solar Cosmic Rays (University of Tokyo Press, Japan, 1974), page 53. 17. ibid., page 55.
18. Bray, R.J., and Loughhead, R.E., Sunspots (Chapman & Hall, New York, 1964), page 244. 19. Sakurai, Kunitomo, op. cit., page 64. 20. ibid., page 63. 21. ibid., page 94. 22. Bray, R.J., and Loughhead, R.E., op. cit., pages 242243. 23. ibid., page 276. 24. ibid., pages 151, 154. 25. Larson, Dewey B., Nothing But Motion, op. cit., page 107. 26. Bray, R.J., and Loughhead, R.E., op. cit., page 132. 27. ibid., page 140. 28. ibid., pages 6667. 29. Bray, R.J., Loughhead, R.E., and Durrant, C.J., The Solar Granulation (Dover Publishers, 1979), pages 41, 86. 30. ibid., page 88. 31. Larson, Dewey B., Universe of Motion, op. cit., pages 248249. Part I: The Nature of Stellar Matter Part II: The Solar Interior and the Sunspots
GLIMPSES INTO THE STRUCTURE OF THE SUN PART II THE SOLAR INTERIOR AND THE SUNSPOT
In Part I of this paper, we have endeavored to develp some important properties of matter at very high temperatures–those that prevail in the stellar interiors. Utilizing the principles developed there, we will now attempt to deduce the internal structure of the sun. For ease of reference, the section numbers, the figure numbers, and the reference numbers are all continued from Part I.
6. Morphology of the Solar Core
We have noted that the energy generation in the stars is by the thermal destruction process, and that preliminary calculations [5] establish that the thermal destructive limits of the elements are in the ultra high temperature range. So the central region of the sun is composed of matter at the intermediate and the ultra high temperatures. The matter in the ultra high temperature core manifests as an ensemble of thredules, which we have seen to be thin, straight, continuous filaments (Section 3.3). We now note that both these thredules, and the embedded comagnetic field lines that run along the length of these filaments are expanding in the longitudinal direction (Section 4.1). The directions of the thredules have to be randomly oriented in the threedimensional space of the reference system when no factor providing for a preferred direction exists. But since the sun is rotating, the axis of rotation does provide such a preferential direction. As such, the great majority of the thredules form in a direction parallel to the axis of rotation. Once the general direction of the thredules is fixed, we can deduce that, by the operation of probability, half of these will have north magnetic flux lines threading through their length, while the remaining half will have south magnetic lines (the qualifications ―north‖ and ―south‖ being merely chosen for the sake of convenience of reference, and do not mean to point to any external magnetic field).
6.1 Formation of the Two Sheaves of Thredules
For reasons explained in Section 4.2, the south and north thredules segregate into two principal domains of opposite magnetic polarity. Given no other factors, therefore, one would expect the ultra high temperature core to assume a configuration in which two coaxial, cylindrical sheaves of north and south thredules respectively occur. Since we have seen (Section 4.2) that two parallel comagnetic lines of the same magnetic field direction attract each other, the minimum energy configuration for either of the sheaves mentioned in the preceding paragraph would be one in which all the thredules are mutually parallel. However, at the interface between the two sheaves we find thredules of opposite magnetic field direction occuring adjacent to each other. Since
parallel comagnetic lines of opposite field directions tend to repel (Section 4.2), we see that the above arrangement of the two sheaves does not yield the least energy configuration for the interface. Therefore, the above configuration would give way to another in which the interficial energy is also reduced. This could be readily achieved by tilting the adjacent thredules of the two sheaves in opposite directions, while, at the same time, keeping the adjacent thredules of any one sheaf mutually parallel. This would render the cylindrical shape of each sheaf into a hyperboloid. The final configuration of the two sheaves of thredules at the beginning of a solar cycle will be that of two coaxial hyperboloids, as shown in Figure 5. For the sake of clarity, only a few of the thredules of each sheaf are shown in the figure.
Figure 5  Formation of Thredules in the Solar Core (schematic diagram only–not to scale) Let us denote the angles of inclination of the thredules of the inner and outer sheaves with respect to the direction of the axis of rotation of the sun by øi and øo respectively. Remembering that the thredules tend to maximize their length (Section 3.3) and so do the comagnetic lines (Section 4.1), one can easily compute that the optimal values of øi and øo would be ±45°. (More involved calculations point out that øi would be around 50°, and øo around 40°.) In Figure 5, the inner thredules are shown inclined such that øi = +45°, while the outer thredules with øo = 45°.
6.2 Effect of the Progress of the Solar Cycle
The thredule structure does not extend beyond the ultra high temperature core. The comagnetic field lines running along the thredules, however, jut out into the outer layers.
When they emerge out into the low temperature regions where the magnetic effects are in the space of the reference system, instead of in equivalent space, lines of opposite field directions join in Uloops and start exerting attractive force. This tends to effectively anchor the tips of the thredules of opposite field directions. We might imagine the circular edges of the inner and the outer hyperboloidal sheaves respectively to be jointed at each end. Now while retaining these anchorages at the ends, if the inclination of all thredules is altered by some angle, say ø, then øi becomes ø + 45° and ø0 becomes ø  45°. This means that the inner thredules would be pointing to lower latitudes and the outer ones to higher latitudes. The effect on the shape of the two hyperboloids would be such that the inner one gets more separated from the outer. Consequently, the repulsive interficial energy decreases further. Therefore, this is what happens with thte progress of the solar cycle, as shown in Figure 6: the inner thredules go on tilting toward lower and lower latitudes, and their average length increases, while the outer thredules of opposite magnetic polarity go on tilting toward higher and higher latitudes, and their average length decreases.
Figure 6  Change of the Thredule Orientation with the Progress of the Solar Cycle
7. Birth of the Sunspots
The sun‗s atmosphere consists of three distinct layers; the lowest is the photosphere with an estimated depth of 200400 km, followed by increasingly rarefied and transparent layers of the chromosphere and the corona. The bulk of the energy is emitted by the photosphere as continuum radiation. The opacity of the photosphere increases very rapidly with depth, producing the illusion of a sharply defined outline of the sun. The effective temperature of the photosphere, on the basis of blackbody assumption, is estimated to be 5780° K.
7.1 Observational Description
Sakurai gives a graphic account of how sunspots form:
―At first, a localized magnetic field appears... In general, sunspots start out as pores, which are small regions much darker than the surrounding photosphere... the magnetic field strength increases significantly... and a fullfledged sunspot group develops. The sunspots are concentrated in the preceding... and the following... ends of the group...‖ ―The magnetic field has different polarity in the spots belonging to the preceding and following ends... It is wellestablished that most sunspot groups appear as bipolar.‖ ―... a fully developed sunspot consists of the central dark umbra, through which most of the magnetic flux is channeled, and the less dark penumbra.‖ The magnetic field strength has a maximum value near the center of the spot, or where the spot is darkest, i.e., the core of the umbra. The strength of the magnetic field is about 1,0005,000 gauss for welldeveloped sunspots... The fully developed sunspot may exist for days, weeks, or months...‖ [16]
7.2 Explanation of the Origin
We will see that the explanation of the structure of the solar core we have delineated earlier logically leads to the explanation of the origin and properties of the sunspots and the associated phenomena. In the beginning of the previous section, we have noted that the thredules (as well as the comagnetic lines embedded in them), tend to expand in the longitudinal direction. As they do so and penetrate into the lower temperature outer regions, they give up heat to the surrounding material and eventually drop into the intermediate temperature region and cease to exist as thredules. However, at times due to the local variations in the energy generation process, thredules with large enough energy shoot outwards with sufficient violence as to reach the top of the atmosphere before getting dissolved. As this ultra high temperature matter breaks through the photosphere, it makes its appearance as a sunspot of low temperature (for reasons explained in Section 3.3) and is seen as a sunspot. Thus, the sunspots are hotter and not cooler than the surrounding photosphere. The characteristic of the comagnetic field lines to bunch together in the transverse direction naturally produces a field intensity sharply increasing toward the center or core of the spot umbra, which is the hottest (though ostensibly the coolest) portion. Between the two sheaves of thredules oppositely inclined to the rotation axis (Figure 5), the inner one is naturally at a higher temperature. Moreover, as the solar cycle advances, the thredules in the inner sheaf become longer, while those in the outer become shorter (Figure 6). Consequently, the great majority of the sunspots arise out of the shooting of the more energetic inner thredules. In fact, the magnetic polarity of the precursors of an emerging bipolar spot group is that of these inner thredules. Thredules of opposite magnetic polarity, being induced outwards by the action of the precursors, emerge to form the spots of opposite polarity of the sunspot group. As we will see presently, these latter always appear on the "following" end of the group, and a little while later than the precursors.
As those of the thredules belonging to the inner sheaf, and which will be emerging at the photospheric level as the leader spots travel through the matter of the intermediate temperature shell surrounding the core, that matter in the immediate vicinity of these passing thredules gets heated up. Some of this matter in the line of travel rises to the ultra high temperature level and transforms into the thredule state (see Figure 7). The comagnetic lines in these induced thredules will, of course, be of opposite polarity. These induced thredules, therefore, appear as the spots of the opposite polarity when they emerge at the photospheric level. The general finding that the preceding spot appears first, develops first, and disappears last, is exactly what is to be expected from our above theoretical account if we remember that the induced thredules are less energetic, as well as timelagged, compared to the inducing thredules.
Figure 7  Preceding and Following Spots in the two Hemispheres The reason why the induced spots always form behind, with reference to the direction of rotation of the solar surface may not, however, be readily understood. We have already noted in Section 3.3 that the motion at the ultra high speed pertains to a scalar dimension altogether different from the scalar dimension that is coincident with the conventional reference system. [11] Even though such motion does not produce direct effects in the reference system, being itself a motion in space it always acts to oppose the motion represented in the reference system. Inasmuch as the motion in the dimension of the reference system did produce changes of position in that system, the overcoming of that motion (by the ultra high speed motion in the second scalar dimension) reverses those changes of position. The position of the induced thredule, thus, would be located at a little angular distance backwards compared to the position of the inducing thredule relative to the direction of rotation of the sun. This produces the separation between the preceding and the following members of a spot group.
8. Sunspot Properties 8.1 Characteristics of the Spot Groups
Figure 7 illustrates one of Hale‗s polarity laws of sunspot groups: namely, that the polarity of the preceding (following) spots in each hemisphere is opposite. We have just now explained its origin. Currently, the formation of spot groups is being attributed to the buoying up of toroidal magnetic flux tubes supposed to be subsisting below the photosphere. If this were to be true, all spot groups have to be bipolar. The occurrence of unipolar and those classified as complex groups cannot be accounted for. Largescale, low intensity magnetic regions of the photosphere within which sunspots rarely appear are referred to as the bipolar magnetic regions (BMR), and the unipolar magnetic regions (UMR). Like the bipolar sunspot groups, the BM regions also are found to obey Hale‗s polarity laws. It is not difficult to see that these regions arise as the thredules and the embedded comagnetic lines shoot outwards, but the thredules give up heat and completely dissolve prior to reaching the visible layers of the photosphere, whereas the comagnetic lines emerge out. Since they are no longer in equivalent space when they so emerge, these lines no longer bunch together, but tend to diverge and their intensity falls to a low value. This is the origin of the magnetic regions. Once again, in the conventional theory it is difficult to account for existence of the UM regions. ―The belts where sunspots most frequently appear migrate from high latitudes around 35°  40° at the start of the new solar activity cycle, to the low latitude region around 5° 10° at the end of the solar activity cycle. This migration of the sunspot producing areas occurs at almost the same time in both the northern and southern hemispheres.‖ [17] We have already arrived exactly at this finding by theoretical deductions toward the end of Section 6 above. Bray and Loughheed, who have done extensive work on sunspot studies, comment, ―The cause of the latitude drift is very obscure.‖ [18] Solar prominences are archlike structures, which appear as dark filaments against the solar disk, but appear luminous at the limb. There are two types of prominences: one type appears in the region of 45° latitude where sunspot groups are born and migrates with them toward the equator, as shown in Figure 8. The other type is not associated with sunspots, and appears around 45° latitude and tends to migrate polewards, reaching the pole toward the maximum of the solar activity cycle. Both types of prominences are known to form along the borders between magnetic regions of opposite polarity. The magnetic polarity distribution around the polar prominences is opposite to that around the spot prominences, as indicated in Figure 8. Sakurai states, ―... as yet we do not know the cause of this relationship... This subject is not yet fully understood in spite of extensive efforts to discover the cause of the formation of solar magnetic fields, both sunspot and ‗general‘.‖ [20]
Figure 8  Migration of Prominences (adopted from Reference 19) But our theoretical derivation correctly predicts this state of affairs: in Section 6 we have shown that the thredules of the outer sheaf assume higher latitude positions with the advance of the solar cycle. These thredules are shorter and less energetic and succeed in producing only the bipolar magnetic regions in the photosphere, and not the sunspots. It is evident that the polar prominences are associated with these regions. Since the inner and the outer thredules are of opposite polarity, the preceding and following members of the BMR associated with spot prominences (arising from the inner thredules) are of opposite polarity compared to the corresponding members of the BMR associated with polar prominences (arising from the outer thredules). The migration of the two classes of BMRs, one poleward, and the other toward the equator, is similarly explained (see the end of Section 7.2). Before leaving the subject of prominences, we should mention that scientists find it hard to explain why the gaseous material arching out in space sustains the filamental shape, when there is nothing to prevent its lateral expansion. Sakurai remarks, ―Even now we do not have a definite explanation of how the cool gas constituting the prominences is supported by the magnetic lines of force of the sunspots, because this gas may easily diffuse out without resistance from the magnetic lines of force.‖ [21] But we have already seen why the matter in the very high temperature range retains the threadlike structure and how expansion in the context of such temperatures is observed as contraction. We will now move on to the explanation of another observational fact–a fact which the conventional theories find most difficult to explain–namely, the reversal of the polarity scheme of the bipolar spot groups in both the hemispheres with each new cycle of solar activity. This is expressed as another of Hale‗s polarity laws: ―The entire system of polarities remains unchanged during any one 11year cycle of sunspot activity, but reverses with the beginning of the next cycle...‖ ―The reversal... begins with the appearance of spots of the new cycle in high latitudes before the spots of the old cycle have completely disappeared.‖ [22] (See Figure 8.) The beginning of the next cycle of the energy generation process takes place at the center of the sun as the temperature there once again reaches the thermal destructive level of the
element present there. This creates a fresh pair of inner and outer sheaves of thredules lying inside the pair of sheaves belonging to the old cycle. The thredules of either sheaf of the new cycle also will be inclined at nearly 45° on either side of the axis, respectively. In view of the fact that the comagnetic lines of like polarity have an affinity to each other, two things happen. Firstly, the thredules of the outer sheaf of the new cycle will form inclined to the axis on the same side in which the thredules of the inner sheaf of the previous cycle happened to be inclined. Secondly, the magnetic polarities of the thredules of these two sheaves will be identical. Since the polarity of the thredules of the inner sheaf is opposite to that of the thredules of the outer sheaf, we have the final result that the polarity of the thredules of the inner sheaf (and hence of the preceding spots) of the new cycle is opposite to the polarity of the thredules of the inner sheaf (and that of the preceding spots) of the old cycle.
8.2 The Sunspot Penumbrae
Soon after the appearance of a sunspot, the surrounding material of the photosphere in its immediate neighborhood starts becoming darker and at some subsequent stage, thin filaments directed more or less radially outwards from the spot umbra form. These annular regions around the umbrae are referred to as the penumbrae. The lengths of these radial filaments are known to vary according to the spot size and complexity. The radiation intensity in the penumbra gradually decreases inwards from the photosphere to the penumbraumbra border, where it falls very steeply. The filaments end abruptly such that this border is sharply outlined. Bray and Loughhead state: ―It must be admitted that neither the mode of origin of the penumbra nor the role it plays in the sunspot phenomenon as a whole is yet properly understood.‖ [23] However, we can readily see that the penumbra must comprise of the photospheric material heated up to the intermediate temperature by the thredules that form the spot unbra. Both its filamental configuration, and sharply demarcated interface with the umbra suggestive of the phase change that occurs on crossing the boundary between the ultra high speed region and the intermediate speed region, clearly point to this. Observations of sunspots near the solar limb show a marked asymmetry in the penumbral width (the Wilson effect) that seemed to suggest that the sunspots are saucerlike depressions in the photosphere. But recent observations with improved resolution never revealed such depressions when seen right up to the limb. The Wilson effect results if the umbra is much more transparent, rather than the penumbra, as compared to the photospheric material. This, of course, is what is to be expected. Opacity is a result of the absorption of radiation by the processes of photoionization and photoexcitation. With increasing temperature, more and more atoms are completely ionized, and the scope for the above absorption processes decreases. Therefore the matter in the penumbra is more transparent than the low temperature photospheric matter and that in the umbra more transparent than both of these.
8.3 The Evershed Effect
Radially outward motions in the sunspot penumbrae (parallel to the photospheric surface), named as the ―Evershed velocities‖ (after their discoverer) are known to exist. No vertical or tangential velocities were ever observed in the penumbrae. The radial velocity–radial to the spot–increases from about 1.0 km/sec at the boundary between umbra and penumbra, reaches a maximum of about 2.0 km/sec near the center of the penumbra and comes to zero at the outer edge of the penumbra. It is also known that the Evershed velocity increases with the depth. According to Bray and Loughhead: ―... The simplest interpretation of the Evershed effect is that it consists of a laminar flow of matter outwards from the umbra along the filaments... ―One piece of evidence against the hypothesis is the observed variation of the Evershed velocity with height: this would seem to be of sufficient magnitude to prevent the occurrence of a purely laminar flow... the shearing effect of the vertical velocity gradient would quickly lead to the disintegration of the filaments. Yet individual filaments are observed to persist... ―No trustworthy mechanism for the origin of the driving force of the Evershed flow has yet been proposed. It is rather interesting to note that at the photospheric level the direction of the motion is opposed to the pressure gradient, the pressure in the umbra being less than that in the photosphere.‖ [24] All the above description of the Evershed effect exactly fits our theoretical conclusion that the penumbral matter is in the intermediate temperature range. The commencement of the radial velocity with a finite value (instead of a zero value) at the boundary of the umbra, the sustained laminarlike flow, despite the existence of a steep velocity gradient in the vertical direction, the apparent motion against the pressure gradient, all of these point to the same thing, namely, that the motions in the penumbra pertain to the region of equivalent space. In Section 3.2.4 we have shown that thermal motion beyond the unit level tends to contract a material aggregate. Therefore the decrease in the intermediate temperature with the increase in the penumbral radius involves a reexpansion that extends all along the radius. Although this manifests as a flow in the penumbral filaments, in reality, its true nature is altogether different. We shall let Larson explain it: ―At this time we will take a look at another of the observable effects of motion in time... its effect in distorting the scale of the spatial reference system. ―... in the physical universe we are able to use the spatial reference system only on the basis of an assumption that the rate of change of time remains constant ... the scale of spatial coordinate system is related to the rate of change of time ... At speeds in excess of unity, space is the entity that progresses at the fixed normal rate, and time is variable. Consequently, the excess speed above unity distorts the spatial coordinate system.‖[25] Thus at higher intermediate temperatures there will be a greater scale distortion (in the manner of contraction) and vice versa.
The Evershed flow is not a genuine change of position of the particles of matter in the space of the reference system: it is, rather, the effect of the occurrence of a scale gradient accompanying the temperature gradient in the intermediate region.
8.4 Evidence Against the Apparent Low Temperature of the Spots 8.4.1 Intensity Measurements
The radiation intensity of the sunspots is measured at several frequency ranges. The current practice of treating this radiation as conforming to the continuum spectrum of the blackbody radiation has lead to conflicting results. Bray and Loughhead remark, ―As a direct consequence of the umbra's low temperature, its spectral class is later than that of the photosphere–dKo as compared to dGo2 for the photosphere.‖ Then on making a comparison with the observed intensity values they conclude: ―It follows that the spectral class of the umbra is decidedly earlier than the temperature derived from intensity measurements made in the continuous spectrum would lead one to expect. The origin of this discrepancy is unknown.‖ [26] This must be so, as long as the true status of this radiation is not recognized. Quoting again from them: ―... numerous weak [spectral] bands due to unidentified compounds have so far been seen only in spots, and ... unidentified bands in the sunspot spectrum are more numerous than those now accounted for.‖ [27]
8.4.2 Sunspot Effects on the Surrounding Granulation
The entire surface of the photosphere appears covered with uniformly bright cells, called the granules, separated by the darker intergranular material. These granules are believed to be convection cells. Observations show that there is an increase in intensity at the Violet and UV wavelengths giving rise to the appearance of bright, ringlike regions around the spots. Bray and Loughhead report that it is ―found that the intensity of the bright ring is greatest immediately outside the penumbra and decreases slowly outwards... the bright rings are unusually intense around spots showing large Evershed velocities. ―No satisfactory explanation of the presence of the bright rings in the photosphere around spots ... has yet been given.‖ [28] Rightly so. But the moment we realize that the spots are hotter and not cooler than the photosphere, then enhanced brightness can be attributed to the energy transfer from the spot. Moreover, from heat transfer studies, it is known that an increased heat transfer rate is correlated with smaller size of the convective cells. We see from Bray et al that ―the size distribution of the solar granulation is extremely uniform over the solar surface... ... Several authors have observed a reduction in the granule diameter or mean spacing in the close neighborhood of sunspots..., which so far has received no theoretical attention.‖ [29] In addition, these areas of reduced granule size adjacent to the spots are found to coincide with the regions of enhanced brightness mentioned above. [30]
8.5 Polarization of the Radiation
Polarization measurements on the integrated radiation from the sunspots indicates that it is partially plane polarized. This, of course, is what is to be expected (see the end of Section 3.1).
9. Radiation Associated with Sunspots
We have already discussed some aspects of the magnetic fields, the prominences, and the granulation in association with the spots. In addition to the continuum and line emission, different other patterns of radiation emission are observed in conjunction with sunspot groups. Nonthermal radio emission in the metric frequency range is often found above spot groups and is known as the Type I continuum storm. Such sunspot groups with Type I emission are also found responsible for the generation of solar flares (sudden, local increases in the surface brightness of the sun). Emission of microwaves, soft thermal Xrays, high energy particles (of MeVBeV range), hard nonthermal Xrays, gamma rays, and nonthermal burst emissions at radio frequencies are all known to occur in the several phases of the solar flares. Some of the radiation is seen to be strongly polarized. The scientists admit that as yet no satisfactory and consistent explanation of the complex nature of these radiation phenomena is available. Larson discusses at length the processes that generate nonthermal Xrays and radio waves. [2] He explains how stable isotopes become radioactive and emit radiation at radio wavelengths when they are transported from the low temperature region to the intermediate temperature region. In a similar manner, he shows that when matter which has attained isotopic stability in the intermediate temperature region is transported to the low temperature region, it again becomes radioactive and emits Xrays and gamma rays. [31] As such, it is not difficult to account for the origin of the variety of the observed radiations in association with the sunspots, once the presence of the ultra high and the intermediate speed matter in and around them is recognized.
10. Epilog
We have shown that reasoning from the principles embodied in the Reciprocal System it is possible to explore the internal structure of the sun. The theoretical understanding so obtained is in consonance with the observations of sunspot and relevant phenomena. The main thesis derived is that sunspots are produced by the surfacing of the ultra high temperature matter in the solar core in the form of ―thredules‖ to the photospheric level. It must be mentioned that the theoretical account of the solar interior herein reported is a simplified one that is meant to serve as the basis for further, more detailed, work. References
Glimpses Into the Structure of the Sun
1. Larson, Dewey B., Nothing But Motion (North Pacific Publishers, Portland, OR, 1979) 2. Larson, Dewey B., Universe of Motion (North Pacific Publishers, Portland, OR, 1984) 3. ibid., page 41. 4. ibid., pages 6162. 5. Nehru, K.V.K., "Intrinsic Variables, Supernovae and the Thermal Limit," Reciprocity XVII (1), Spring, 1988, page 20. 6. Larson, Dewey B., Universe of Motion, op cit., pages 7073. 7. Larson, Dewey B., Nothing But Motion, op.cit., page 155. 8. Larson, Dewey B., Universe of Motion, op cit., page 215. 9. ibid., page 224. 10. ibid., page 215216. 11. ibid., page 213. 12. ibid., page 214. 13. ibid., page 223. 14. ibid., page 364. 15. Larson, Dewey B., The Neglected Facts of Science (North Pacific Publishers, Portland, OR, 1982), pages 912. 16. Sakurai, Kunitomo, Physics of Solar Cosmic Rays (University of Tokyo Press, Japan, 1974), page 53. 17. ibid., page 55. 18. Bray, R.J., and Loughhead, R.E., Sunspots (Chapman & Hall, New York, 1964), page 244. 19. Sakurai, Kunitomo, op. cit., page 64. 20. ibid., page 63. 21. ibid., page 94. 22. Bray, R.J., and Loughhead, R.E., op. cit., pages 242243.
23. ibid., page 276. 24. ibid., pages 151, 154. 25. Larson, Dewey B., Nothing But Motion, op. cit., page 107. 26. Bray, R.J., and Loughhead, R.E., op. cit., page 132. 27. ibid., page 140. 28. ibid., pages 6667. 29. Bray, R.J., Loughhead, R.E., and Durrant, C.J., The Solar Granulation (Dover Publishers, 1979), pages 41, 86. 30. ibid., page 88. 31. Larson, Dewey B., Universe of Motion, op. cit., pages 248249. Part I: The Nature of Stellar Matter Part II: The Solar Interior and the Sunspots
INTRINSIC VARIABLES, SUPERNOVAE AND THE THERMAL LIMIT
Introduction
According to the Reciprocal System the main energy generation process in stars is by way of thermal destruction of the atoms of the elements present in the stellar core. ―....both the thermal energy of the matter in the star and its ionization energy are space displacements, and when the total of these space displacements reaches equality with one of the rotational time displacements of an atom, the opposite displacements neutralize each other, and the rotation reverts to the linear basis. In other words, both the ionization and a portion of the matter of the atoms are converted into kinetic energy. ... ―....Inasmuch as the entire structure ... is fluid, the heavy elements make their way to the center. As the temperature in the central regions rises, successively lighter elements reach their destructive limits and are converted to energy.‖[1]
The Destructive Limit
The destructive limit Td, that is, the temperature at which the neutralization of one of the twodimensional displacements of the atom takes place can be worked out as follows. A temperature T in Kelvin, expressed in the natural units, is given by T/Tnat (1)
where Tnat is the natural unit of temperature in the timespace region (that is, the threedimensional spatial reference frame) expressed in the conventional units [2] as Tnat = 7.20423 x 1012 K (2) Since speed displacement is the deviation of the speed from the natural datum—the natural datum in the universe of motion being unity—the space displacement. corresponding to a temperature T is (T/Tnat) 1 (3) This, therefore, is the space displacement available per each rotational unit of the atom when it is at a temperature of T Kelvin. If the net number of rotational units (the atomic number) of the atom is Z, the total space displacement available due to the thermal energy is Z * ((T/Tnat)  1) (4) The temperature of the atom is a linear (vibratory) motion in the timespace region while the rotational motion that constitutes the atom is in the time region (inside unit space). The total number of equipossible orientations for a unit of linear motion in the timespace region is shown to be 8 [3]. As such, the portion of the space displacement of the temperature that becomes effective in the time region is Z * ((T/Tnat ) 1)/8 (5)
Thermal destruction of the atom implies the neutralization of one of its twodimensional time displacement units since the basic rotation constituting an atom is twodimensional. The onedimensional equivalent of a twodimensional displacement of magnitude n being 2 * n² , where the atomic displacements are a  b  c , the time displacement units needing to be neutralized would be either 2 * (a  1)² or 2 * b². Thus, we have, at the destructive limit Td‘ 2 * n²  Z * ((T/Tnat )1)/8 where n = either (a  1) or b, whichever is bigger. (7) (6)
It must be pointed out at this juncture that though the space displacement of the electric ionization does add to that of the thermal motion in neutralizing a unit of the magnetic time displacement of the atom, its contribution is comparatively small—amounting to not more than a fraction of a percent of the temperature displacement. Hence, no appreciable error will be introduced by dropping the ionization displacement from consideration at the present stage. In fig. 1 are shown plotted the values of the thermal destructive limit of the elements against Z. As can be seen, this temperature increases as the atomic number decreases. But the most conspicuous feature of the curve is that, instead of being monotonous, it dips at several locations where there is a change in the displacement of the atom in one of the magnetic dimensions. These dips, occurring respectively at Z = 70, 27 and 6 are of paramount significance in determining the course of stellar evolution as we will presently see.
Figure 1: Destructive Limits of the Elements
The Intrinsic Variables
Under normal stellar conditions, where there is no severe largescale turbulence, gravitational segregation of the elements according to their masses would take place, the heavier ones migrating toward the core. Taking this gravitational segregation into consideration, if we plot the thermal limit Td of the material of the star at different radii we obtain a curve of the general nature shown in fig. 2.
Figure 2: Regular Burning The distribution of the actual temperature Ts in the star at various radii is also shown plotted in the figure. We see at the center, P, that the temperature is the same as the destructive limit of the heaviest element present. As such, this element gets thermally neutralized to yield the energy output of the star. We shall refer to this process as the ‗regular burning‘ in order to distinguish it from the ‗secondary burning‘ which we will presently explain. As the element burning (that is, the thermal neutralization) continues, elements of lower Z (and with higher Td) keep arriving at the center. At the same time the stellar temperature gradually keeps on rising so that each of these lower Z elements reaches the thermal limit successively at the center. Thus, the Td vs. radius curve goes on shifting horizontally to the left in the diagram, while the Ts vs. radius curve gradually keeps on rising, signifying higher stellar temperatures, as evolution progresses. Eventually the group of elements with Z = 74 to 70 arrives near the center. The state of affairs is now as shown in fig. 3.
Figure 3: Onset of Secondary Burning
It can be seen that the stellar temperature curve now begins to intersect the Td curve at two points P and Q. Therefore we find that while principally elements 74 and 73 are burning at the center P, element 70 also arrives at its destructive limit at location Q, slightly farther out. The consequent ignition of element 70, however, upsets the previous equilibrium between the thermal and the gravitational forces, for three reasons. Firstly, the element 70 is relatively more plentiful compared to the elements of higher Z and thus a potentially larger energy source is switched on, and switched on suddenly, in addition to the existing source. This new source we shall refer to as the ‗secondary source.‘ Secondly, this happens not quite at the center (where the regular source has been operating) but at a slightly larger radius rs (see fig.3), which we shall call the ‗secondary burning radius,‘ where there was no energy generation previously. Thirdly, the extent of the spherical area at radius rs, where s the thermal limit of the secondary fuel is reached, is comparatively larger than available to the regular fuel at the center, and in consequence the proportion of the secondary fuel that is ignited is much greater. The additional energy thus released causes an expansion of the star. This drops the stellar temperature and acts as a negative feedback, shutting off the new energy source. Subsequent contraction repeats the cycle and we have the phenomenon of the intrinsic variable. In fact, the Cepheids could be identified as the stars burning elements around the ytterbiumdip at Z = 70 (fig.l). Larson proposes [4], in the context of the Reciprocal System, that in the regular course of the energy generation process, with elements of lower atomic numbers successively arriving at the center to be neutralized, the appearance of an element such as lead (Pb), with comparatively higherthannormal abundance, initiates the variability cycle. This might well be one of the causes of the variability and the long period variables seem to fall into this category. However, as the stellar mass (and consequently its temperature) increases, the ratio of the additional energy produced to the total stored energy decreases. As such, the variations become damped out and unobservable. In the case of the higher temperature stars, therefore, the principal cause for the variability could be attributed to the Ybdip as explained in the foregoing. The phenomenon of the intrinsic variable occurs whenever there is a cyclic upsurge in the energy production. This also happens when the central temperature of a gravitationally contracting aggregate first reaches the destructive limit of the heaviest element present there. In fact, Larson identifies this category of stars as the long period variables [4].
The Main Sequence Stars
The phenomenon of the variable luminosity manifests only in case the accretion rate is high and the star follows the path AC shown in the ColorMagnitude diagram (see fig.6 of Reference [SD] The story of a main sequence star, with about the same surface temperature as that of the variable is somewhat different. This is primarily because whenthe stellar temperature archives at the Ybdip, the temperature gradients in the variable and the main sequence star are markedly different. In the variable the Ybdip occurs much farther from the core as compared with the main sequence star. As shown in fig.4 (a) and (b) the temperature gradient in the core is much steeper in the main sequence star.
(a) Main sequence star (b) Intrinsic variable Figure 4: Effect of Temperature Gradient on the Dip If dZ is the difference between the atomic number of the element currently burning at the center and that of the new arrival (the secondary source), the effect of the steep temperature gradient is to keep dZ to a small value (1 or 2). Therefore no marked difference in the magnitude of energy generation will result by the initiation of the secondary burning. Whatever little difference there may be is successfully damped out by the larger heat capacity and the larger mass of the overlying material (in view of the smaller secondary burning radius rs). Consequently the main sequence star of comparable surface temperature passes less conspicuously than the variable through this Td dip. In the case of the variable the dZ is larger (4 or 5) (see fig.4 b)) which results in considerable amount of secondary energy production.
The Type I Supernova
As the elementburning continues and the cobaltdip (at Z = 27) arrives at the core while element 31 or 30 is burning at the center, a spectacularly different result ensues. Firstly, the secondary source triggered suddenly is proportionately very large—not just three or four times the regular, as in the case of the Ybdip, but nearly a hundredfold bigger— owing to the much greater relative abundance of the Cogroup of elements. Secondly, because of the large size of the dip in Td at Z = 27 the secondary burning radius is appreciably large. As such, a large number of elements (with Z between 32 and 27), and in quantities more plentiful than the regular fuel now burning at the center, are present within the sphere of radius rs, waiting to be ignited but for their higher destructive temperatures. The initial spate of the secondary energy released by the onset of the thermal destruction of Co at the radius rs does two things: on the one hand, it causes the expansion of the overlying material and results in a drop in the temperature, which thereby acts as a negative feedback switching off the Co ignition. On the other hand, it compresses the material inside the radius rs . This sudden implosion raises the temperature in the region sharply and brings all the highTd material within the radius rs catastrophically to its destructive limit. Consequently, a pilot explosion takes place in the core, liberating considerably large quantities of energy greater nearly by a magnitude or two than was being released hitherto—and liberating this energy in a short interval. This acts as a positive feedback and retriggers the burning of the CoFe group of materials at the radius rs at a substantially high rate. This high rate of temperature rise raises the temperature of
a large portion of. the Cogroup well above its destructive limit, culminating in the supernova explosion before the negative feedback of the drop in temperature owing to the expansion of the outer layers has time to operate. In fact, if the star is quite large, a few outer luminosity pulsations may be apparent before the core explodes, activating the final cataclysm of the cobalt explosion. As Larson points out [6], the supernova explosion disperses the major portion of the Cogroup out into space before it had a chance to get destroyed in the event. Hence their cosmic abundance keeps on building up unlike that of the other elements of higher Z. The elements of Z = 28 through 30, which are inside the secondary burning radius, and are involved in the pilot explosion, also seem to share this good fortune to a limited degree by virtue of their higher destructive limits.
Conclusions
Highlighting the effect of the Td dip on stellar evolution we summarize: 1. In the course of the regular burning in the stellar core, the element that reaches the thermal limit next in the succession is that with dZ = 1 or 2. The effect of the dip is to activate a source with dZ = 4 or 5, with the concomitant larger difference between the relative abundances of the regular and the secondary energy sources. This is one of the causes of the variable luminosity. 2. The secondary energy source thus activated by the dip is an extra source, operating in addition to the regular source existing at the center. 3. The secondary source is located not at the center but at a larger radius called the secondary burning radius. 4. The longperiod variables could be identified as the stars burning element Pb at the center or the ones that just started their energy production by thermal neutralization while the Cepheids are the ones passing the ytterbiumdip (Z = 70). 5. The Type I supernova explosion is the result of the cobaltdip (Z = 27) reaching the stellar core.
References
1. Dewey B. Larson, The Universe of Motion, North Pacific Pub., Portland, Oregon, 1984, pp. 4142 2. Dewey B. Larson, The Basic Properties of Matter, The International Society of Unified Science, Salt Lake City, 1988, p. 59. 3. K. V. K. Nehru, ―The Interregional Ratio,‖ Reciprocity, XIV (2  3), Winter 1985/86, p. 5 4. Dewey B. Larson, The Universe of Motion, pp. 61  63. 5. Ibid., fig.6, p. 64
6. Ibid., p. 5.
THE QUASAR PARADOX?
Paradoxes Galore
Paradoxes bring to light flaws in the logical structure of a theory. We have had the famous twin paradox of the Special Theory of Relativity. In our attempts to understand the Reciprocal System of theory some paradoxes seem to be coming up for consideration. One such paradox, which we will name the Quasar Paradox, has recently been mentioned by a student of the Reciprocal System, in a privately circulated communication. Since the correspondent opines therein that this paradox requires revision of Larson‘s theory, it might be educative and worthwhile to discuss the issue with a hope to see the truth. Simply stated the paradox is as follows.1 Larson establishes that the total redshift of a quasar is the sum of the recession redshift z, and that due to the explosion that created the quasar amounting to n*z(1/2), (where n is normally 3.5). As the distance increases and the recession redshift reaches the value 0.326 the explosion redshift arrives at the 2 unit limit. At this juncture, according to Larson, the gravitation inverts and ceases to be inward in space, resulting in the final disappearance of the quasar into the cosmic sector of the physical universe. Now, in the words of the correspondent, The problem is that an observer closer to the quasar would see the relation z + 3.5*z(1/2) as less than that seen by a more distant observer (z being less) and so the speed [in the explosion dimension] would be less than 2 for the closer observer. I feel... that a quasar cannot both fly apart and not fly apart at the same time depending [on] one‘s point of observation.
The New Paradigm
We submit that before undertaking an analysis of the paradox it would be fruitful to draw attention to certain factors which act as preconditions for an unbiased appraisal of the Reciprocal System. The first thing to be recognized is that the Reciprocal System involves a fundamental change in our viewpoint concerning the basic constituent of the physical universe. Its principal tenet is that the universe is constituted entirely of motion. The previous viewpoint regards it as a universe of matter. The most important implication of this new viewpoint is that motion (spacetime) is the content of the universe, whereas the concept of the universe of matter regards space and time as the background or setting on which matter plays. Throughout the ebb and tide of scientific thinking for the past 3000 years, Larson points out, the one unchanging element has been the ‗setting‘ concept of space and time. This has become a thoroughly entrenched habit in the thinking of scientists and laymen alike. Man‘s endeavors to understand Nature have always been impaired by his limited and local viewpoints. He has tended to extrapolate what he perceived and experienced of the local and peculiar environs by merely enlarging their extent, without in the least suspecting that he might not be the centre of the universe. Only the increased power and scope of his observations have brought to light the fact that his global view is vitiated by his local viewpoint. He first thought that the earth was flat before realizing it is spherical.
Then he went on thinking that his earth is the centre of the universe. The proliferation of epicycles eventually led to the discovery that it is the sun that is the real centre and so on. Every time such fundamental revolution in the view points had occurred it encountered bitter antagonism and a cold reception because the old and the new viewpoints were so disparate that the common man and the common scientist of the day could not grasp the truth. We can now see history repeating itself as Larson discovers that our viewpoints about the most fundamental aspects of the physical universe, namely, space and time, have been, after all, local and limited. The view that space is stationary and threedimensional and that time is onedimensional and progressive is only apparently true and applicable only to the gravitationally bound system. Emancipating from this anthropocentric view and recognizing that both space and time are threedimensional in their own right and progressive and that they are reciprocally related comprise the new revolution in human thought. Larson states: Previous investigators have not realized that the ―setting‖ concept is a creature of the ―matter‖ concept; that it exists only because that basic concept envisions material ―things‖ existing in a spacetime setting. In attempting to construct a theoretical system on the basis of the concept of a universe of motion while still retaining the ―setting‖ concept of space and time, these theorists have tried to combine two incompatible elements, and failure was inevitable. ... What is needed is to discard the ―setting‖ concept of space and time along with the general concept of a universe of matter, to which it is intimately related, and to use the concept of space and time that is in harmony with the idea of a universe of motion.‖ (2)2 Realizing this, Larson has repeatedly cautioned in his works that the findings of the Reciprocal System ought to be adjudged from the standpoint of its basic premise(s) and that endeavors to evaluate the new concepts from the viewpoint of the untenable matter concept of the universe (and the associated ―setting‖ concept) are going to lead to absurd results. We shall term the practice of using this old viewpoint in the context of the new theory the Fallacy of Incongruous Viewpoints. The danger is especially strong for all of us who happen to live at the junction of the new paradigm of the universe of motion and the old untenable one of the universe of matter existing in a framework of space and time. Since none of us is in a position to maintain that we are absolutely infallible, it becomes imperative, whenever we encounter a difficulty or paradox in the Reciprocal System, to first establish that we have not unconsciously fallen prey to the Fallacy of Incongruous Viewpoints, before we can legitimately conclude that the logic of the theory is faulty.
Content vs. the Container
Now the crucial point to see is that it is not legitimate to imagine that the quasar is located ‗out there‘ in our coordinate space. When we picture the largescale universe we
tend to imagine that the stationary coordinate reference framenamely, the container spaceas extending indefinitely in the three spatial dimensions and picture quasars and other distant galaxies as studded at specific locations in that stationary reference frame. This, of course, is an unconscious habit of thought carried over from the previous paradigm of ‗container space‘ belonging to the concept of the universe of matter. On examining we find that the stationary reference frame is an artifact applicable only to a gravitationally bound system of material aggregates. The very existence of the stationary reference frame requires unit inward motion to counter the everpresent unit outward motion of the natural reference system. Otherwise we cannot have a stationary reference frame. This needed inward motion is supplied only by a material system that is gravitationally bound. Therefore, whether we explicitly acknowledge or not, the stationary reference frame can exist only in conjunction with a gravitationally bound system3 Since the domain of the net inward motion of a gravitationally bound system ends at its gravitational limit, each such system has its own stationary reference frame. Beyond the gravitational limit the domain of the familiar threedimensional space does not exist: it is, thereafter, a domain of equivalent space.4 The familiar threedimensional space, the space adopted in all our picturizations, ends at the gravitational limit of the gravitationally bound system to which the stationary reference frame is anchored. The truth that there cannot be one universal stationary coordinate reference frame and that each gravitationally bound system has its own stationary reference frame is not immediately and sufficiently recognized. Larson denies ―that all spatial locations could be defined in terms of an absolute spatial reference system, and that time could be defined in terms of a universal uniform flow.‖5 ―In order to get the true picture,‖ Larson remarks, ―it is necessary to realize that no single reference system is capable of representing the whole of physical reality.‖6
The TwoGalaxy Paradox?
Imagine two galaxies A and B of unequal masses, each beyond the ambit of the gravitational limit of the other, and two stationary reference frames attached to each respectively. The spatial separation between the two stationary reference frames need not, in general, be the same as measured from A and B individually. This is because each such stationary reference frame is reckoned from the background of the gravitational motion of the gravitationally bound system to which it is anchored and the magnitude of this (the gravitational motion) is contingent on the mass of the gravitationally bound system. The estimate of the intervening distance according to the observers belonging respectively to either stationary reference frame need not be the same since the observer is observing from the background of the gravitational motion in which he is situated, and this differs for both of them. In fact, this distance is proportional to the recession speed and the reciprocal of the Hubble constant. ―... the astronomers have assumed that the Hubble constant is a fixed characteristic of the physical universe...‖ Larson explains, ―The Hubble ―constant‖... like the gravitational limit... is a property of each individual mass aggregate. In application to
the galactic recession this socalled constant is a function of the total galactic mass ...‖7 More specifically, we have shown elsewhere8 that the Hubble constant is inversely proportional to the fourthroot of the galactic mass. We have shown there how the consideration of the mathematical relations that are applicable to the region beyond the gravitational limit directly leads us to the observed linear relationship between the recession speed and the distance that the Hubble law states. More recently we have also shown9 how the largescale structure of the distribution of galaxies and voids that has emerged from the latest astronomical observations follows from the theoryboth qualitatively and quantitativelyby considering the limitation of the conventional threedimensional spatial reference frame and applying the mathematical relations appertaining to the region beyond. Thus, if vAB is the velocity of recession of galaxy A, as measured by the observer belonging to the stationary reference frame anchored to B; and xand H represent the distance and Hubble‘s constant respectively, we have: vAB = HB * xAB and vBA = HA * xBA and (xAB/xBA)*(vBA/vAB) = HA/HB [2] Then all that we can say about the intervening distance is that XAB need not, in general, equal xBA. Seeing that the basic constituent of the universe is motion, a plausible *assumption* is that these two galaxies are connected by the common speed of recession, rather than by a common intervening distance (which would probably be more appropriate to assume in the context of the concept of container space). Then: xAB/xBA = HA/HB = (MB/MA)¼ [3] where M represents the mass of the galaxy. This might seem an absurd result, but only if looked at from the unacceptable viewpoint of the ―setting‖ concept. [1]
Resolution of the Quasar Paradox
Eq.[2] gives enough clue to resolve the quasar paradox. Whatever happens to the quasar due to the 2unit explosion speed happens to it in an objectively real manner. But since each observer is making his observation from within his gravitationally bound system, the phenomena pertaining to the excess speed components that cannot be directly represented in his ‗absolute space‘ and ‗absolute time‘ frames manifest variously depending upon the local gravitational motion. It must be realized that the inversion of gravity that marks the entry of the quasar into the cosmic sector is relative to the local spatial coordinate framenot relative to the natural reference frame. An analogy might help. Imagine an object of mass m situated on the surface of the earth and two scientists located vertically below the object ad depths d1 and d2 and estimating its potential energy. They would measure it to be respectively mgd1 and mgd2. Then it would seem that the object has a potential energy mgd1 and at the same time a different potential energy mgd2, depending on which observer‘s standpoint one takes. The paradox disappears as soon as it is recognized that the datum levels from which the potential energy is regarded are different.
The term ―at the same time‖ occurring in our statement of the quasar paradox can now be seen to be referring to a concept that is not applicable to the quasar situation under consideration, since this turns on the assumption of the existence of a universal, unique coordinate frame. What has given rise to the quasar paradox is the committing of the Fallacy of Incongruous Viewpoints: it is not, after all, as contended, due to any flaw in the structure of the Reciprocal System. The quasar paradox typically demonstrates (i) how difficult it is for us to cast off our allegiance to the concept of a universal container space and uniform absolute time that pertain to the concept of universe of matter that no longer is admissible in the context of the concept of the universe of motion; and (ii) consequently, how we might be misled to wrong evaluations of the Reciprocal System. Perhaps it is not out of place here to note how rashly and caustically the correspondent condemns Larson‘s theory, in the communication in which he refers to the quasar paradox, and discredits his monumental work. It would seem that one tends not only to underestimate Larson‘s calibre but also to overestimate one‘s own infallibility. Sure and faster progress in the study and research of the Reciprocal System will be accomplished only if we are seeking truth and thoroughly understand the pitfalls a student might encounter. Therefore it might be of some value to dwell on a few more items, in the context of the Reciprocal System, and examine how the unconscious slipping into the old habit of positing everything in the container space might confound our thinking.
Other Conceptual Difficulties
The Time Region. One concept that led some students astray has been that of the time region, the region inside unit space. Since the Reciprocal System asserts that less than a (natural) unit of space does not exist, some tended to interpret that the time region is some kind of pseudospace. The principle mistake, however, has been to conceptually locate the time region in the frame of the container space. It is not realized that what it really alludes to is a region (or domain) of physical action. The inside of a unit of space, to which the concept refers, is still a region of space, not of any pseudospace. This example typically illustrates how desperately we tend to hang on to the known concept of space by some stratagem of using such terms as ‗pseudospace.‘ Travel through Time. Another concept that might mislead students is the manner in which the radiation from an object moving away from us at a speed greater than unity reaches us. Larson points out that such radiation reaches us through time rather that through space. Any conclusion that might be reached by inadvertently and unwarrantedly assuming universal reference frames is bound to create mischief. The Spatialization Syndrome. In the speakers of English ( and of languages of kinder grammatical structure), unfortunately, there is a strong tendency to spatialize everything, even those items that have no noticeable spatial structure (such as thoughts and emotions, say). This, therefore, predisposes the speaker of such a language to picturize/localize all items of knowledge in the container space. This language habit is so thorough that it requires the utmost detachment and awareness to recognize its illegitimacy whenever such is the case.
Moreover, our sentence structure divides reality into ‗actors‘ and their ‗actions,‘ largely due to the occurrence of the grammatical categories of substantive and verb. This practice is so ingrained that we are assisted to imagine that there is necessarily an ‗actor‘ in each fact which, in reality, is only the necessity of a substantive in the sentence structure. For example, our sentence structure requires us to say ‗it is raining‘ while, in truth, ‗raining‘ is sufficient. Another example: we seem to be regarding ‗the thinker‘ as distinct from ‗thinking,‘ while in reality there is no separate thinker disassociated with thinking. Larson explains at length in his Beyond Space and Time that we divide reality into two categories, answering respectively to the two questions ‗what it is‘ and ‗what it does‘ . In the context of the old paradigm of the universe of matter suppose one asks these questions, say, about the earth, one would answer ‗what it is‘ by ‗matter‘ and ‗what it does‘ by ‗moves.‘ However, from the point of view of the Reciprocal System, the answer to both these questions is ‗motion.‘ Therefore one has to be wary not to fall prey to the attitude of misreading what in truth are only the necessities of English grammar as the characteristics of reality. We may call this attitude the Fallacy of Misplaced Categories. The SpaceTime Progression. Another source of potential misconception is the spacetime progression, the background or datum of physical action. it would be educative to inquire as to how we visualize the uniform ubiquitous spacetime progression. Do we visualize it as empty space spread out to infinity and ever expanding? do we tend to miss (or misunderstand) the significance of the concomitant expansion of time? Since space and time are reciprocally related, the expansion in space is nullified by the expansion in time, and each unit of space is not separated by other units of space but all are connected by the unit speed. The spacetime progression is a speed manifoldnot a space manifold, as is commonly visualized. The entire background of the spacetime progression without displacements is a ‗point‘ in the speed manifoldnot an expanse in the space manifold (the container space). In the stationary reference frame all spatial locations are at the same time. But this frame is not valid for the entire universe. Larson states: ‖... It follows that the motions can be represented in the conventional fixed system of reference only by the use of multiple reference points... further elaboration of this point is necessary in order to avoid misunderstandings. The principle stumbling block seems to be a widespread impression that there must be some kind of a conceptually identifiable universal reference system to which the motions of photons and other objects that remain in the same absolute locations can be related. The expression ―natural reference system‖ probably contributes to this impression, but the fact that a natural reference system exists does not necessarily imply that it must be related in any direct way to the conventional threedimensional stationary frame of reference.‖10
Summary
Paradoxes in a theory point to defects in its logical structure. However, paradoxes and difficulties encountered in the Reciprocal System might arise out of another source. One of such is the unconscious practice of looking at the concepts of the Reciprocal System
from the standpoint of regarding space and time as setting or background for physical action rather than regarding them as the contents of the universe. This has been termed the Fallacy of Incongruous Viewpoints. The quasar paradox is seen to belong to this category. Other such unconscious factors identified are e spatialization syndrome and what has been termed the Fallacy of Misplaced categories, both of which were seen to have their origin in the linguistic habits. Before branding the Reciprocal System as fallacious on the strength of any paradoxes that might be proffered, it is mandatory to establish that the proponent is not guilty of committing any of the above fallacies. This danger is especially so with our generation since we are at the change over point and are still steeped in the old frame of thinking.
References
1. The Universe of Motion, (Portland, 1984), p. 210. 2. Nothing But Motion, pp. 1819. 3. Ibid., pp. 6667. 4. The Universe of Motion, p. 197. 5. Nothing But Motion, p. 40. 6. Ibid., p. 41. 7. The Universe of Motion, p. 200. 8. K.V.K. Nehru, ―The Gravitational Limit and Hubble‘s Law‖, Reciprocity, XVI (2), Winter 198788, pp. 1116. 9. ―The LargeScale Structure of the Physical Universe,‖ Reciprocity, XX (2), Summer 1991, pp. 58 and XX(3), Autumn 1991, pp 2328. 10. D. B. Larson, Nothing But Motion, p. 34
RADIO COMPONENT SEPARATION IN QUASARS
In The Universe of Motion,l the volume dealing with the astronomical applications of the Reciprocal System (RS), Larson gives a complete account of the explanation of the quasars and the related phenomena. He deduces that the redshift of the quasars has two components, z, that due to the recession, and q, that due to the speed imparted by the galactic explosion that ejected tlie quasar. He relates these two components by the equation q =3.5z½ (1)
In Chapter 22 of the work cited, he adduces observational evidence supporting his inferences. Among the items he considers there is the observed separation of the radio emitting regions of the quasars. He observes: ―The... angular separation of such large proportion of these radio components of quasars stands out as an observed fact for which conventional astronomical theory has no explanation.‖² According to the RS, the explosion speed of the quasar is incapable of representation in the conventional threedimensional spatial reference system, since it exceeds unit speed (the speed of light), the limit of such reference system. However, under appropriate circumstances, the motion in the second dimension appears in the reference system with a direction perpendicular to the line of motion in the original dimension. An example is electromagnetism. In the case of quasars this direction is perpendicular to the line of sight.
Component Separation Data
In Table VI of his book² Larson lists the quasar component separation data. These data are relisted in Table I below, with the redshift data added and in increasing order of the redshift. Larson states: ―The recession speed in the second dimension is the same as in the dimension coincident with the reference system, but as observed it is reduced by the interregional ratio...‖³ Therefore, denoting the interregional ratio applicable by R, and the lateral separation by y, expressing it in the same units as those of the recession distance z, we have according to Larson y = Rz (2)
However, as could be seen from the last column of Table I, the y/z values are not constant. Larson asserts: ―...the observed separations vary, and are generally less than the calculated 33.3 seconds of arc.‖3³ He attributes the variation in the values to the differences in the times elapsed since the explosion event in the several cases. Table 1. Quasar Redshift and Component Separation Data Designation 3C 273 3C 249.1 Larson‘s classification II B IL q 0.156 0.303 z 0.002 0.008 y/z (arcsecs) 19.6 18.8
3C275.1 3C 261 MSH 13011 3C 207 3C 336 3C 205 3C 288.1 3C 208 3C 204 3C 181 3C 268.4 3C 280.1 3C 432
IE IE IL IE II B II B II A II A II A II A II A II A
0.534 0.586 0.596 0.650 0.866 0.895 1.024 1.026 1.254 1.269 1.480 1.597
0.023 0.028 0.030 0.034 0.061 0.066 0.086 0.096 0.128 0.131 0.179 0.208
13.2 10.8 7.1 6.7 21.7 15.8 6.4 10.5 31.4 6.0 9.4 19.0 12.9
I want to demonstrate that the quasar component separation data listed in the Table indicate a relationship between the recession, z, and the component separation, y, stronger than is suggested by Larson. Class I quasars with q less than 1.0 and Class II quasars with q greater than 1.0 seem to show two distinct patterns. Regression analysis of the data on the first six quasars in Table I (all of which are Class I with q less than 1.0, with the sole exception of 3C 273) yields the following relationship. y/z = A  Bz (3)
with A = 21.44, B = 413.9, and the correlation coefficient = 0.98, which is highly significant.As regarding the Class II quasars with q greater than 1.0 (excepting 3C 208), that is, the last five quasars in Table I, the following relationship shows up. y/z = C + D/z³ (4)
with C = 8.8, D = 0.0124, and the correlation coefficient = 0.75, which is also fairly significant. Discussion Rewriting equations (3) and (4) respectively as y = Az  Bz² y = Cz D/z² for q < 1.0 for q > 1.0 (5) (6)
and comparing them with Eq. (2) it can readily be seen that in addition to the factor z, suggested by Larson, there is another factor z², that contributes to the lateral shift in the coordinate space. Further it might be of interest to note that the following equalities hold good very nearly. B = A², D = 1/C² (7)
Tentatively assuming their validity, we obtain by regression analysis y = 20.9 z  (20.9 z)² for q < 1.0 (8)
with a correlation coefficient of 0.98, and y = 8.96 z + 1/(8.96 z)² for q > 1.0 (9)
with a correlation coefficient of 0.75. Recalling that z is the recession speed, we can see that the explanation for the z² component that occurs in these equations could be as follows. Larson shows that associated witb a speed v (expressed in natural units) there is a shift in coordinate time amounting to v² (in natural units). For example, in the case of gravitation, effects like the excess perihelion shift of a planetary orbit or the deffection of a light beam grazing the sun's limb, are shown to be the result of this coordinate time component. Now it can easily be seen that the second power expression in Equations (5) and (6) is a similar effect of shift in coordinate space, proportional to z². The speed imparted to the quasars on ejection is always greater than unity (in fact, this is what makes them the quasars), and in this speed range we would expect the shift to be in coordinate space rather than in coordinate time. Tbis, therefore, shows up as the additional component in the lateral recession. Further, for values of q , the explosion redshift, greater than unity, the relevant factor to be considered is not the speed but the inverse speed, due to the reversal of the spacetime direction from the point of view of the conventional reference system. Hence the coordinate spatial shift is proportional to 1/z². We encounter similar state of affairs in the case of the formation of the planetary system of a star. The planets condense from what Larson calls the B component of Type I supernovae, a white dwarf moving in the intermediate speed range. Discussing the Bode's Law, Larson deduces4 that tbe distances of the inner planets fiom the sun are related to the factor n², where n is the number of units of motion in time on the spatial side of the neutral point. The distances of the outer planets are related to the factor 1/n² since they pertain to the temporal side of the neutral point of the motion in time. On analysis we find that, for the inner planets, the following equation holds good with a correlation coefficient of 0.999. d = 0.868 n  0.1028 n² (10)
where d is the distance from the sun in AU, and n the number of units of motion in time. Tbe regression equation for the outer planets (including the asteroids) comes out with a correlation coeffcient of 0.999 to be d = 0.1184 n + 76.28/n² (11)
The values of n are as follows: for Mercury 8, Venus 7.5, Earth 7, Mars 6, Asteroids 6 to 5, Jupiter 4, Saturn 3, Uranus 2, Neptune and Pluto 1.5.
Conclusions
l. Larson has shown that the lateral shift, y, of the radio components of the quasars is due to the speed in the second scalar dimension and is a constant (the interregional ratio) times z, the recession redshift. 2. We find that there is an additional shift in the coordinate space that is given by the following relationships y = AzBz² y = Cz+D/z² forq<1.0 forq>1.0
where q is the speed of the quasar in the explosion dimension, and A, B, C, D are constants.
References
1. D.B. Larson, The Universe of Motion, Portland OR: North Pacific Publishers, 1984. 2. Ibid., p. 300. 3. Ibid., p. 301. 4. Ibid., pp. 9899
ANOTHER LOOK AT THE PULSAR PHENOMENON
Astronomers have recognized in the pulsars, the extremely compact pulsating stellar objects, opportunities to test the correctness of the predictions of different theories of gravitation. In fact, the substantial amount of accurate observations accrued on the binary pulsar PSR 1913+16 by J.H. Taylor et al.¹,² brings this goal nearer to achievement. It is, therefore, possible to test the Reciprocal System on the basis of the information now available on PSR 1913+16 and other pulsars. According to the Reciprocal System, a pulsar is the ultrahighspeed product of a Type II supernova explosion–the result of reaching the upper rotational limit of matter. In Quasars and Pulsars³ Larson gives a brief account of the origin and characteristics of pulsars. Arnold Studtman&S‗4 in his doctoral dissertation Towards a Unified Cosmological Physics gives a critique of Larson‗s theory of pulsars. A study of these raises some issues that need clarification. 1.0. Firstly: we recall that quasars, too, like the pulsars, are the result of gigantic Type II explosions which impart sufficient speed to carry them past the neutral point and into the region of motion in threedimensional time. The overcoming of the gravitation that gives rise to the pulsation phenomenon is present in the quasar situation as well. As such, the reason why the pulse phenomenon is not apparent in the case of quasars must be explained. 2.0 If Larson‗s account of the pulse mechanism is correct, it can be seen that the duration of each pulse cannot be more than a few natural units of time (n.u.t.), at the most, beyond the point where gravitation has decreased to half of unit value. But such a conclusion is not consistent with the observed fact, since the pulse widths range from about 5 to 30 milliseconds. For instance, at the point where gravitation is down to 0.500, half of the radiation from the ultra high speed explosion product is observable in space and the other half is unobservable. We thus receive radiation for 0.152 x 1015 seconds, after which there is a quiet interval of 0.152 x 1015 seconds, then another flash of radiation, and so on.5 Here it is important to note that the fraction to which the unit gravitational speed is reduced gives the ratio of the pulse duration to the pulse period. Thus, in the above example, when gravitation has come down to 0.5, we find that there is radiation for a duration of one n.u.t. succeeded by a quiet interval of one n.u.t. Thus the period is two n.u.t., and the ratio of pulse duration to pulse period is 1 n.u.t./2 n.u.t. = 0.5. Now suppose that gravitation has come down to 0.4. In this case, as far as the radiation is concerned, the proportion of the spatially active time units to the spatially inactive time units is 0.4 to 0.6. Since there are no fractional units, we find that there will be a radiation pulse for a duration of 2 n.u.t., followed by a quiet interval of 3 n.u.t., yielding a pulse period of 5 n.u.t.–the .us smallest whole number of n.u.t. possible. However, the ratio 2/3 of the spatially active to the spatially inactive units is not the only one which is equal to the ratio 0.4/0.6. The ratios 4/6, 6/9, 8/12, etc. are all mathematically equal to it. But the 2/3 ratio is the most probable one since it involves the least number of consecutive units
of any one kind, spatially active or spatially inactive, in continuous succession. Thus, as the gravitation goes on attenuating, the pulse period increases, but the pulse duration does not grow, being constrained by the discrete unit postulate and the probability principles. By the time the pulse period has grown to an observationally detectable size, the pulse duration remains in the range of one n.u.t. to a few femtoseconds. But this conclusion is at variance with the actual observed pulse widths. Neither Larson nor Studtmann points out this discrepancy. 2.1. One way to get over this problem seems to be by realizing that the magnetic explosion which drives the stellar matter to the superluminal speeds does not impart those speeds to all parts of the affected material at the same instant of time. Presumably the inception of the explosion takes place at the center of the star and spreads to the outer layers at the speed of light. Consequently, different portions of the star enter the region of motion in threedimensional time at different instants. This engenders a phase difference among the radiation pulses given out by these various portions, while their respective pulse periods will be the same, since the period is determined by the degree of attenuation of the gravitation and not by the epoch of their reaching the gravitational limit. Thus the observed pulse can be seen to be the result of juxtaposing individual subpulses (from the different portions), each of duration not more than a few femtoseconds. A total pulse width of 10 milliseconds, say, implies that the portion of the original stellar material that became the pulsar is of radius (10 x 10³ sec) x (2.99793 x 105 km/sec), equal to 0.0043 solar radii; the outlying material being dispersed into space to form the SNR (supernova remnant). This does not mean that only material within a radius of 3000 km underwent the catastrophic explosion. The explosion might continue to larger radii, but the speed imparted to it becomes less than is necessary to transport the matter to the region of threedimensional time. Thus, knowledge of the pulse width will enable one to estimate the fraction of the original star‗s mass that went into the pulsar. 3.0. The next difficulty with Larson‗s account of the pulse mechanism concerns the occurrence of two separate peaks in the pulses of many pulsars (like CP 0834, CP 1133, NP 0532, PSR 1913+16, etc.) No explanation has been offered for this from the framework of the Reciprocal System. In the conventional lighthouse model, the double peak is explained by suggesting that the pulsar beam is a hollow cone and the peaks could be the two sides of the cone sweeping past our earth. Though this suggestion is perfectly legitimate, the process whereby such a hollow cone beam of polarized radiation can be generated in the pulsar is far from being understood. 3.1. Two ways of accounting for this pulse structure seem possible in the context of the Reciprocal System. Larson points out that the distribution of emitted radiation takes place twodimensionally ―. . . when (it) originates in the region of ultra high speeds, where physical action takes place only in two scalar spacetime dimensions, and not in 3dimensional space or time.‖ 6 Furthermore, this is also the reason for the radiation to be polarized, as it is constrained to the two dimensions. It is not clear why Larson, while asserting both the twodimensional distribution of radiation and its polarization in the
case of the quasars, highlights only the polarization aspect with nothing more than a passing reference to the planar emission in the case of the pulsars. The double peak can easily be explained if the pulse production is regarded as being due to the 2dimensional distribution of the pulsar radiation coupled with the fact of the rapid spinning of the pulsar. Two peaks are the result if the angle between the spin axis and our line of sight is greater than the angle of tilt of the radiation plane relative to the spin axis. 3.2. The second alternative is the explanation offered in item 2.1. above. As the total pulse is seen to be made up of an ensemble of phaseshifted micropulses originating from different zones that are transported to the realm of motion in 3dimensional time at different moments, the general shape of the pulse gives an idea of how the explosion progressed. Obviously the first material to reach superluminal speeds is that nearer the center of the star where the explosion begins. In the normal course, the explosion spreads radially outward in an expanding spherical shell. Therefore, as the explosion progresses, the quantity of the material involved in the explosion increases nearly as the square of the radius, in the initial stages, with the consequent rise in the magnitude of the explosion. This manifests itself as the corresponing increase in the amplitude (luminosity) of the successive subpulses, starting from zero. However, as the explosion front progresses to larger radii it encounters material at lower and lower densities–the decrease in the density eventually more than offsetting the increase in the spherical area. This results in a fall in the intensity of the explosion and shows up as a decrease in the amplitude of the successive subpulses. However, if the size of the exploding star is very large, the above phenomenon is modified. The densities in such a star in the regions beyond the initial parts of the explosion are greater compared to a star of smaller size. Under these conditions, the advancing compression wave due to the explosion in the inner regions is usually sufficient to raise the material density at a larger radius and to step up the strength of the explosion again, resulting in the second peak. It may also be noted that in such a case the height of the second peak has normally to be less than that of the first. In the case of a smaller star the second peak does not occur for the reason that the pressure wave simply ejects the low density matter in the outer layers outward, forming the remnants. The Type II supernova, which is the origin of the pulsar, is the result of reaching an age limit. This also means that the general size of the star is comparatively large (due to accretion) and hence the double peak in the pulse need not be a rare feature. As already remarked, the shape of the pulse is the signature of the explosion. With a knowledge of the density profiles in stars and the kinetics of the explosion it is not difficult to calculate the critical size of the star necessary to produce two peaks in the pulse. Since, as already noted, the pulse duration gives an idea of the radius of the parent star involved in the explosion, it is possible to estimate the mass of the pulsar, its radius, period of rotation, density, luminosity, and average temperature. 4.0.1. The next difficulty is concerning the calculations of the lifetimes. In .us Quasars and Pulsars Larson explains that the pulsar is continuous until the inner gravitational limit
is reached in the explosion dimension. Beyond this distance there is a pulsation with an increasing period. There is also another distance, the outer gravitational limit, beyond which there is no gravitational effect at all and hence the pulsar is not visible as it ―leaves the material sector‖ of the universe. In the .us Structure of the Physical Universe Larson evaluates these two gravitational limits for a star of one solar mass as being 2.26 and 13350 light years respectively. Consequently, he points out that the life of a onesolarmass pulsar is limited to about 13,000 years. Further, as the continued attenuation of the gravitation–which is responsible for the gradual increase of the pulse period–is related to the inverse square of the distance traveled (in time) Larson arrives at the following relation between the period P and the age A: P = KA² where K is a constant. Since both the age and the period of the Crab Nebula pulsar, NP 0532, are known, he calculates the value of the effective inner gravitational limit in the case as being 6 x 105 light years7. The inner and outer gravitational limits of a star of m solar masses are respectively given by d = 2.26 m½ and d = 13350 m½ light years. Therefore, their ratio: d /d = 13350/2.26 = 5907.1 is seen to be independent of the mass. Thus the outer gravitational limit in the above case of NP 0532 works out to be d = 5907.1 x (6 x 105 ) = 0.354 light years. This means that its life is limited to 0.354 years, of 130 days! Thus there is an unresolved incompatibility between the requirement of a small inner gravitational limit as little as 6 x 105 light years (to account for the pulsar‗s present period) and the requirement of an outer gravitational limit as being nearly 13350 light years (to account for the lifetime). 4.0.2. Studtmann8 estimates the masses of several pulsars on the basis of a relation involving the maximum possible age of a pulsar. For example, the maximum pulse period, for the Vela pulsar, PSR 0833, is computed to be 5.2345 seconds. Then on the basis of P = KA² relation, the A of PSR 0833 is calculated to be1503 x (5.2345/0.0892) = 11514 years where 0.0892 seconds is its present (1969 value) pulse period at the age of 1503 years. Comaring this maximum age with that of a one solar mass pulsar, namely 13350 years, he calculates the mass of PSR 0833 as (11514/13350)² = 0.74 solar masses. However, there is an inconsistency in the calculations. This stems from the fact that the present age of the Vela pulsar, 1503 years, used in the above computation is, in the first instance, arrived at in an earlier calculation5 on the basis that its mass is one solar mass. To be precise, the fact that the value of the constant K in P = KA² is dependent on the mass of the pulsar seems to have been overlooked. The period P of the pulsar at an age A , when it just arrived at the inner gravitational limit d , is one n.u.t. Since d = A (when the former is expressed in light years and the latter in years)10 we have A = 2.26 m½
(see item No. 4.0.1. above). Thus K = P /A² = 1.52 x 1016 / 2.26²m Moreover, it will be seen that if P = KA² is to be true, the maximum possible period, whatever might be the pulsar‗s mass, turns out to be P = (13350/2.26)² x 1.52 x 1016 = 5.31 x 109 seconds! Once again the inference seems to be that the inner gravitational limit of 2.26 light years is too large. 4.0.3 The next difficulty of the same category is concerning the time derivative of the period, P. Studtmann¹¹ describes how Larson, from the three relations, P = KA², A is inversely proportional to P, and 3 = P, concludes that Pis inversely proportional to P raised to the power of 1.5. But since age A is time, from P = KA² we have P = 2KA. How A is taken to be inversely proportional to P is not clear. 5.0.1. The next category of difficulty is about the pulsar gravitation. Do pulsars exhibit additional redshift like the quasars, which according to the theory arises out of the motion in time? 5.0.2. Because of the ultra high range of speeds imparted to the pulsar material, the material is expanding in time and the gravitation that seems to be acting is gravitation in time. If pulsar gravitation is in time, it is not clear how a pulsar can ever form a binary system (like PSR 1913 + 16, for example). 5.0.3. Further, it must be recalled that gravitation is an inward scalar motion .us inherent in the very scalar motion forming the material atoms. So long as the material type of atomic rotation is extant, it is not clear how the concomitant gravitation can be anything other than spatial. In the case when the gravitation in space is completely offset by the speed imparted by the explosion, it must be recognized that the explosion speed can only counteract the .us translational aspect of the gravitation, and cannot nullify the positive scalar .us rotation;, much less convert it to the negative rotation of the cosmic atoms which is the source of the gravitation in time. Consequently, even though the two extra units of speed transport the material into the cosmic sector where the gravitation in time is operative, the atoms with the material type rotation cannot form aggregates in 3dimensional time–they move outward in time as well as space. 6.0. Explaining the pulsing at Xray frequencies occurring in the case of some pulsars, Larson says ―. . . accreted lowspeed matter will interact with the adjacent portions of the pulsar, and will reduce the speed of some of its constituent particles below the unit level, causing the emission of xrays . . . Inasmuch as all of the three types of radiation, radio, Xray, and optical, originate in the rapidly moving pulsar, the pulsation rates will be the same for all.‖¹²
But the retarding of the superluminary matter to the region below unit level (thereby causing Xray emission) will also eliminate the cause for the pulsing phenomenon, since in that speed range radiation is emitted continuously, that is, in every unit of clock time. . 6.1 It is suggested that, on the other hand, the xray emission could be the result if some portions of the pulsar material are .us accelerated from the 2x speed range to the 3x range, since this speed range brings the motion back into space again (in the second scalar dimension). 7.0. Larson states: ―At this . . . 0.500 distance, half of the radiation from the ultra high speed explosion product is observable in space and the other half is unobservable.‖5 This description, I think, can be misunderstood by imagining that though the other half of the radiation is unobservable in space, it nevertheless exists. But this is impossible because the photons of radiation, having no independent motion, progress scalarly outward at unit speed and are observable either from the naterial sector or from the cosmic sector. ―The other half‖ which Larson refers to as being ―unobservable‖ must be radiation which .us was never emitted. The term ―radiation observable in space‖ could be misleading too. In his .us Structure of the Physical Universe, Larson very clearly explains the mechanism of the emission of radiation, making use of the Principle of Inversion. ―From this principle we find that the thermal motion of the atoms of matter is in equilibrium with a similar vibratory motion of the space units in which they are located. . . . and as spacetime progresses it carries this vibrational motion of the space units along as radiation.‖13 The atoms enter new space units as they are moving inward in space (while spacetime is progressing outward), and these new units also acquire the vibration and become photons. So long as the material atoms are continuously moving from one space location to another (in the inward direction) by virtue of their gravitational motion, each successive space unit traversed turns into a photon, and the radiation is continuous. If the radiation is to be intermittent–as in the case of the pulsars–this can happen only if the motion of the atom is intermittent. For instance, in the example cited by Larson, where the gravitation is down to 0.500, the atoms move inward to the adjoining space unit in one unit of time and in the next unit of time their movement is coincident with the background spacetime progression. From the foregoing it can be seen that if L is the luminosity calculated from the StefanBoltzmann Law, the actual luminosity L is proportional to L /P where P is the pulse period, because the energy leaves the atoms only intermittently. If this argument is legitimate it must lead to the correct theoretical identification of the relationship between the radio luminosity and the period.
REFERENCES
1. Scientific American, May 1979, p. 75. 2. J. M. Weisberg et al., Scientific American, Oct. 1981, p. 66. 3. D. B. Larson, Quasars and Pulsars, North Pacific Publishers, Portland, Oregon, 1971), p. 159. 4. A. D. Studtmann, Toward a Unified Cosmological Physics (1979).
5. Larson, Quasars and Pulsars, pp. 16667. 6. Ibid., p. 100. 7. Ibid., p. 169. 8. Studtmann, op. cit., p. 595. 9. Ibid., p. 588. 10. Ibid., p. 591. 11. Ibid., p. 592. 12. D. B. Larson, Astronomical Xray Sources, (North Pacific Publishers, 1974) p. 9. 13. Larson, The Structure of the Physical Universe, (North Pacific Publishers, 1960), p. 119.
THE COSMIC BACKGROUND RADIATION: ORIGIN AND TEMPERATURE
The Cosmic Sector
One of the outstanding achievements of the Reciprocal System of Theory is the discovery of the fact that the physical universe is not limited to our familiar world of three dimensions of space and one dimension of time, the material sector as Larson calls it. By virtue of the symmetry between the intrinsic natures of space and time, brought to light by Larson, he demonstrates the existence of a cosmic sector of the physical universe, wherein spacetime relations are inverse of those germane to the material sector. The normal features of the cosmic sector could be represented in a fixed threedimensional temporal reference frame, just as those of the material sector could be represented in a fixed, threedimensional spatial reference frame. In the universe of motion, the natural datum on which the physical universe is built is the outward progressional motion of spacetime at unit speed (which is identified as the speed of light). The entities of the material sector are the result of downward displacement from the background speed of unity (speeds less than unity), while those of the cosmic sector are the result of upward displacement from unit (speeds greater than unity). But entities— like radiation—that move at the unit speed, being thereby at the boundary between the two sectors, are phenomena that are common to both these sectors. Gravitation, being always in opposition to the outward spacetime progression, is inward in scalar direction in the threedimensional spatial or temporal reference frames. Since independent motion in the material sector (threedimensional space) is motion in space, gravitation in our sector acts inward in space and results in largescale aggregates of matter. Gravitation in the cosmic sector acts still inward but it is inward in threedimensional time rather than in space. Consequently the cosmic sector equivalents of our stars and galaxies are aggregates in time rather than in space. Further, as Larson points out, ―... the various physical processes to which matter is subject alter positions in space independently of positions in time, and vice versa. As a result, the atoms of a material aggregate, which are contiguous in space, are widely dispersed in time, while the atoms of a cosmic aggregate, which are contiguous in time, are widely dispersed in space... ―Radiation moves at unit speed relative to both types of fixed reference systems, and can therefore be detected in both sectors regardless of where it originates. Thus we receive radiation from cosmic stars and other cosmic objects just as we do from the corresponding material aggregates. But these cosmic objects are not aggregates in space. They are randomly distributed in the spatial reference system. Their radiation is therefore received in space at a low intensity and in an isotropic distribution. Such a background radiation is actually being received.‖1
2. The Radiation Temperature
An approach to the derivation of the temperature of this cosmic background radiation is described now. This can be seen to involve the consideration of several other previously derived items like the relative cosmic abundances of the elements and their thermal destructive limits. To this extent, therefore, the present analysis has to be treated as provisional—a revision in the derivation of these items would entail a corresponding modification in the present derivation. Notwithstanding this, the general approach to the derivation described herein continues to be valid as far as it goes. The basis for a quantitative enquiry into the properties of the phenomena of the cosmic sector, in general, is the fact that the spacetime relations are inverted at the unit level. For instance, ―... the cosmic property of inverse mass is observed in the material sector as a mass of inverse magnitude. Where a material atom has a mass of Z units on the atomic number scale, the corresponding cosmic atom has an inverse mass of Z units which is observed in the material sector as if it were a mass of 1/Z units.² ―Because of the inversion of space and time at the unit level, the frequencies of the cosmic radiation are the inverse of those of the radiation in the material sector. Cosmic stars emit radiation mainly in the infrared, rather than mainly at the optical frequencies .. and so on.‖³ Therefore, we expect the background radiation to be at a low temperature (that is, high inverse temperature).
2.1 Averaged Energy Density
We shall attempt to calculate the temperature of the background radiation by adopting the energy density approach. The energy density in space of blackbody radiation at a temperature of T kelvin is given by U = b * T4 ergcm3 where b = 7.5643 x 1015 ergcm3 K4. The major contribution to the background radiation is from the cosmic stars. As such, we shall attempt to arrive at the average energy density of the cosmic star radiation by finding the lumped average of the energy density of the radiation from all the stars in the material sector and then taking its inverse. At this juncture we should recognize a point of crucial importance which renders the analysis simple: to an observer in the cosmic sector the atoms at the center of a material sector star are as much exposed as the ones at its periphery, and the radiation from the interior atoms is as much observable as that from the outer atoms. This is because, as already mentioned, the locations of the atoms of a spatial aggregate are randomly and widely dispersed in the threedimensional temporal reference frame. Analogously, to an observer in the material sector all the atoms of the cosmic sector star are observable. Since (i) the temperatures in the stellar core are larger by many orders of magnitude—nearly a billion times—than the temperatures in the outer regions of a star and (ii) energy density is proportional to the fourth power of temperature (eq. 1), no appreciable error would be introduced if the energy density of the stellar radiation, originated in one sector but as observed in the opposite sector, is calculated on the basis of the central temperature alone. (1)
The temperature prevailing at the center of a star is determined by the destructive temperature Td of the heaviest element in it that is currently getting converted to radiation by the thermal neutralization process. On theoretical grounds we expect stars ‗burning‘— that is, undergoing thermal neutralization—elements with atomic numbers ranging all the way from 117 down to a limiting value, Zs, to occur. Zs is the atomic number of the element which, as explained in detail elsewhere4, when it arrives at the center of the star, leads to a chain of events culminating in the thermal destruction of the Co/Fe group of elements, in other words, in Type I supernova explosions. No star burning an element with atomic number less than Zs is possible because it would have disintegrated in the supernova explosions. Theoretical considerations suggest that Zs could be between 30 and 26.4. The relevant energy density of the radiation of a star burning element Z at its center is Uz = b * (Td,z)4 ergcm3 where Td,z is the thermal destructive limit of element Z, in kelvin. Now it becomes necessary to estimate the proportion each of the stars with central temperature are the same as the destructive limit of the element Z, for Z = 117 to Zs. Since the more abundant an element happens to be, the larger would be the number of stars burning it, on the basis of the cosmic abundance of the elements that is taken to be uniform throughout the universe, we can deduce the ratio of the number of stars burning element Z to the total number of stars as fz = az / S(az) where az is the relative cosmic abundance of element Z and S( ) stands for,
117
(2)
(3)
Z=Zs Hence the expected energy density of the radiation from all the stars can be given by U = S(fz * Uz) ={b / S(az)} * S(az * (Td,z)4) ergcm3 (4)
2.2 The Inverse Energy Density
Because of the reciprocal relationship between corresponding quantities of the material and cosmic sectors, the energy density of the radiation from the cosmic stars would be the inverse of this quantity. But before taking the inverse we must convert the concerned quantities into the natural units from the conventional units. Thus the energy density in natural units is u = U / (En * Sn3) (5)
Where En = natural unit of energy expressed in conventional units5 = 1.49175 x 103 erg and Sn = natural unit of space expressed in conventional units5 = 4.558816 x 106 cm
We need to recognize now that radiation in the cosmic sector is dispersed in threedimensional time whereas the material sector progresses linearly in onedimensional time. A onedimensional progression in the cosmic sector has two mutually opposite ‗directions‘ in time (say, AB and BA), only one of which is coincident with the ‗direction‘of the time progression of the material sector. The total radiation from the cosmic sector is distributed equally between the two temporal directions and consequently the energy density apparent to us would be only half of the total. That is uapp = u/2 (6)
Larson brings out this point of the relationship between the actual and the apparent luminosities while discussing the quasar radiation.s Finally, the energy density of the radiation from the cosmic stars as observed by us is in the inverse of this quantity uc = 1/uapp =2/u in natural units (7)
2.3 Thermal vs Inverse Thermal Distribution
At this juncture a question that naturally arises is that whether the nature of this radiation from the cosmic sector would be thermal or not. Especially, recalling what has been quoted from Ref.[3] earlier, it is clear that this radiation is of the inverse thermal type. Under these circumstances the adoption of eq. (1) is questionable since it pertains only to thermal radiation. On examining the values of the thermal destructive limits of the elements, we find them all larger than the unit temperature, that is, the temperature corresponding to unit speed.4 If we remember that the demarcations of the speed ranges of the material sector are as much applicable to the linear vibratory speeds (thermal motion) as to the linear translational speeds, it becomes apparent that the central temperatures of the material sector stars are in the intermediate range, that is, on the timezero side of the onedimensional range (see fig. 8 of Ref.[7]) Quoting from Larson: ―... ordinary thermal radiation is ... produced by matter at temperatures below that corresponding to unit speed. Matter at temperatures above this level produces inverse thermal radiation by the same process, ... with an energy distribution that is the inverse of the normal distribution applicable to thermal radiation.‖8 From the foregoing the following syllogism suggests itself: 1. The energy distribution of a cosmic sector phenomenon would be the inverse of the energy distribution of the corresponding material sector phenomenon. 2. The phenomenon under consideration is the distribution of radiation from the core of a cosmic sector star. 3. The distribution of the radiation from the core of a material sector star is inverse thermal, since it originates in the intermediate temperature range.
4. Hence the distribution of the radiation from the core of a cosmic sector star would be the inverse of inverse thermal, that is, thermal.
2.4 Comparison with Observations
Reverting to the conventional units, we have the apparent energy density of the background radiation as Uc = uc * (En * Sn3) ergcm3 (8) Finally the derived temperature of the background radiation, with the energy density given by eq. (8) is (adopting eq. ( 1)) Tc = (Uc / b)¼ K Substituting from eqs. (4), (5), (7) and (8) in eq. (9) and simplifying Tc = 5.4257 x 1013 * [S(az) / S(az * (Td,z)4)]¼ K (9)
(10)
Adopting the theoretically calculated values of az, the relative cosmic abundance9 and Td,z, the thermal destructive limits4 of the elements, the background temperature Tc are worked out for Zs = 117, 116, ..., 26. The listing of a Pascal program for this calculation is given in the Appendix. Some of the conputed values of Tc are listed in Table 1 for Zs values ranging from 31 to 26. Table l. Computed Values of the Cosmic Background Radiation Temperature Zs Tc (Kelvin)  31 2.989 30 2.798 29 2.614 28 2.435 27 2.587 26 2.739 The most probable candidate for Zs, either from the theoretical considerations4 or from the empirical cosmic abundance data turns out to be 30. The expected temperature of the background radiataon corresponding to Zs = 30 can be seen to be 2.798 kelvin. The observed values reported in the literature range from 23.74 to 2.9 kelvin. It is instructive to note that the value of this temperature calculated on the basis of the element Fe (that is, Zs = 26) which according to Larson is the element responsible for the supernova explosion, turns out to be 2.74 kelvin. This is in fair agreement with the recently published value of 2.75 kelvin estimated from accurate observations.10 Even though the derivation of the temperature of the background radiation described herein is cursory, if suffices to demonstrate that it could be derived from theory alone in the context of the Reciprocal System.
3. Conclusions
To highlight some of the important points brought out: 1. The stars of the cosmic sector of the physical universe are aggregates in time and are observed atom by atom, being randomly distributed in the threedimensional space. 2. The radiation from these is observable as the cosmic background radiation: its absolute uniformity and isotropy resulting from item 3.1 above. 3. The distribution pattern of this radiation is inverse of inverse thermal, that is, thermal. 4. Since the radiation originating from the cosmic stars gets equally divided between the two opposite ‗directions‘ of any single time dimension, the apparent luminosity as observed from the spatial reference Reciprocity, Pol. XX, No. 1 (Spring, 1991) system of our material sector (which progresses ‗unidirectionally‘ in time) is half of the actual luminosity. 5. The energy density of the background radiation is the apparent energy density of the cosmic star radiation, which is the reciprocal of the energy density of the material star radiation after accounting for item 3.4 above. 6. The temperature of the background radiation computed for Zs = 30 is 2.798 kelvin and for Zs = 26 is 2.739 kelvin (where Zs is the atomic number of the element at stellar core responsible for Type I supernova). These are in close agreement with the observational value of 2.75 Kelvin.
References
1. Dewey B. Larson, The Neglected Facts of Science, North Pacific Pub., Oregon, U.S.A, 1982, pp. 7273 2. Dewey B. Larson, Nothing but Motion, North Pacific Pub., 1979, p. 190 3. Dewey B. Larson, The Universe of Motion, North Pacific Pub., 1984, p. 387 4. K.V.K. Nehru, Intrinsic Variables, Supernovae and the Thermal Limit, Reciprocity, XVII (1), Spring 1988, p. 20 5. Dewey B. Larson, Nothing but Motion, op. cit., p. 160 6. Dewey B. Larson, The Universe of Motion, op. cit., p. 341 7. Ibid., fig. 8, p. 72 8. Ibid., p. 246 9. K.V.K. Nehru, Relative Abundance of the Elements, Reciprocity, XII (3), Winter 1985, p. 28
10. David T. Wilkinson, Anisotropy of the Cosmic Blackbody Radiation, Science, Vol. 232, 20 June 1986, pp. 15171522
THE LARGESCALE STRUCTURE OF THE PHYSICAL UNIVERSE
Extensive astronomical observations carried out during the decade that passed have for the first time revealed a most unexpected picture of the universe on a cosmic scale. The picture that emerged is defying all the present cosmological theories. In the present Paper, therefore, an attempt has been made to apply the principles developed in the Reciprocal System of theory with a view to show that the conclusions reached are in consonance with these recent observational findings. In order to demonstrate the power of the Reciprocal System as a truly general physical theory, in Part II of the Paper, a mathematical treatment of the concepts developed herein will be undertaken and the results compared with facts.
1. The Bubbles in Space
In the 1980‗s, astronomers have surveyed billions of lightyears into space and millions of galaxies and analyzed their redshifts. These studies show that the galaxies are not distributed evenly in space but tend to occur in clusters and then these clusters themselves occur in large groups (the superclusters). The most unexpected discovery, however, is the occurrence of immense voids in space, empty of galaxies, between the superclusters.1,2 Threedimensional maps of the universe prepared from the redshift surveys indicate that ―...the universe is made up of gigantic bubbles: spherical or slightly elliptical regions of space apparently void of matter, whose outer surfaces are defined by galaxies. ... All the galaxies... lie on the surfaces of bubbles that measure from about 60 to 150 million lightyears across.‖³ The investigations of Geller and Huchra4 have brought to light largescale clustering of galaxies stretching in the form of ―gigantic filaments and sheets‖ 170 Mpc (megaparsecs) by about 15 Mpc. The group led by Faber5 finds the `Great Attractor,‗ a stupendous concentration of galaxies with ―...a diameter of about 80 Mpc and a mass of 3x1016 Suns. That would be the mass of tens of thousands of typical galaxies, including the dark matter one infers from the dynamics of galaxies.‖6 Reference [2] gives a graphic description: ―Threedimensional maps of the distribution of galaxies... show features quite unlike those of most other astronomical objects: the galaxies are concentrated in enormous sheets and filamentary structures whose greatest dimension, roughly 100 million lightyears, is an order of magnitude larger than its lesser dimensions. ...Moreover, within each structure the galaxies are not evenly distributed: one can distinguish more densely populated clumps and strings... Finally, interspersed among the largest structures are huge voids, virtually free of galaxies, that are between 100 and 400 million light years across.‖ Broadhurst and his collaborators7 have investigated the galaxy redshifts out to a distance of 2000 Mpc in two narrow regions in the direction of the Galactic north and south poles where the obscuration by dust is the least. Their measurements reveal periodic oscillation of the density of galaxies with distance, all the way out to 2000 Mpc. The Fourier
spectrum of these oscillations peaks sharply at a spacing of 128 Mpc (about 417 million lightyears), as though dense globs of galaxies are alternating with regularly spaced voids.
2. Trouble for the Conventional Theories
There are two diametrically opposite views of galaxy formation. Some astronomers hold that the galactic structures form as ascending cascades. According to their `bottomup‗ theory galaxies form out of a soup of gas and dust and subsequently coalesce to form clusters and superclusters. Other theorists advocate the ‗topdown‘ theory which proposes that the matter in the universe first collapses into vast pancakelike sheets, which then fragment, giving rise to superclusters, clusters and galaxies (the descending cascades). But neither model predicts the formation of bubbles which have the sharplydefined surfaces of galaxies that are now observationally revealed. John Horgan8 commenting in Vigyan (Scientific American, Indian edition) states: ―The cold dark matter model predicts that most galaxies take at least several billion years to form, so few should be found at distances greater than 10 billion lightyears. ... Astronomers have now identified a score of galaxies more than 10 billion lightyears away.‖ Since astronomers currently assume that the universe began in a big bang about 13 billion years ago, Horgan remarks that: ―Theorists have a hard time explaining how galaxies formed so soon after the big bang.― While models positing cold dark matter thus have difficulty producing such large structures as now discovered, Powell9 remarks that: ‖... models that assume fastmoving dark particles–―hot dark matter‖–do not accurately mimic the smallerscale details seen in the universe. ... Cosmologists ... agree, at the very least, that current theories are far from complete.‖ Among other things, the universality and the immensity of the spherical voids have caught the theorists utterly unawares. ―Valérie de Lapparent and Margaret J. Geller note ... that the immense size of the bubbles suggests that powerful stellar explosions–and not the force of gravity, as is widely thought–had the primary role in the formation of the universe.‖³ Some astronomers suggest that supernova explosions drove matter into spherical shells, but the predicted shell sizes are orders of magnitude smaller than those of the observed bubbles. Another severe problem that now plagues the astronomers is concerning the recent findings by the Cosmic Background Explorer (COBE) satellite which show the temperature of the microwave sky to be uniform to within one part in 10,000. At much finer angular resolution than that of COBE, recent measurements of selected patches of microwave background by Readhead10 find no fluctuations down to two parts in 100,000. Since astronomers conventionally regard the microwave background radiation as the relic from the primordial (hypothetical) big bang, its absolute isotropy implies that the early universe was extremely uniform. The current theories of cosmology–including the ‗inflationary theory‘–are unable to account how the largescale structure of the distribution of galaxies now evident emanates from the prevenient absolute uniformity.
3. The `Cycle' of the Universe
We will now try to examine what the Reciprocal System of theory has to offer in this regard. The most important factor that is relevant to our present discussion is the finding of the Reciprocal System that the vista of the physical universe is not limited to the familiar threedimensional space of the conventional reference system but that, by virtue of the reciprocal relation between space and time, there exists another half, the cosmic sector, the region of motion in threedimensional time. For a complete description of the logical development of the Reciprocal System that leads to the discovery of the various ‗regions‘of the universe Larson‗s original works11,12,13 must be consulted. We will give here a brief outline of the evolutionary process of the dual sector universe to serve our present purposes. Quoting from Larson14: ―1. Because of the reciprocal relation between space and time in scalar motion, there is an inverse sector of the universe in which motion takes place in time rather than in space. All scalar motion phenomena in threedimensional space are thus duplicated in the cosmic sector... ―2. There is a limiting size for galaxies, and ... some of those that reach this limit explode, ejecting fragments, known as quasars, at speeds in the ultra high range, between two and three times the speed of light. ―3. When the retarding effect of gravitation is reduced enough by distance to bring the net speed of a quasar above two units (twice the speed of light) the gravitational effect inverts, and the constituents of the quasar are dispersed into threedimensional time (the cosmic sector of the universe). ―4. The effect of the explosion and its aftermath is to transform a quantity of matter from a state in which it is highly concentrated in space to a state in which it is widely dispersed in time. ―5. By reason of the reciprocal relation between space and time in scalar phenomena, it follows that the inverse of the foregoing processes likewise take place, the net effect of which is to transform a quantity of matter from a state in which it is highly concentrated in time to a state in which it is widely dispersed in threedimensional space. ―We thus find that there is a constant inflow of widely dispersed matter into the material sector from the cosmic sector.‘
4. Origin of the Bubbles
The two principal forces deciding the course of events in the universe are gravitation and outward progression of spacetime. The ultimate ejection of quasars into the cosmic sector takes place when the net speed reaches two units. Then gravitation ceases to operate in space. This leaves the outward progression of the natural reference system unopposed, and that progression carries the constituent units of the spatial aggregates outward in all directions at unit speed (the speed of light). Thus, centered around the physical location of the erstwhile quasar, a spherical void starts growing. All the matter that constituted the quasar now gets either uniformly dispersed over the expanding spherical surface or ejected out of the material sector altogether. This leaves the inside of the void genuinely empty.
Meanwhile there is a continual inflow of matter, which has been similarly ejected from the cosmic sector. Since it comes from sources that are not localized in the threedimensional space it emerges in the conventional reference frame spread absolutely uniformly throughout its extent. In addition, the rate of inflow of this matter is constant, since the Reciprocal System posits a steady state on the large scale. Therefore the density of matter in the expanding bubble rises steadily, starting from zero. This diffuse matter in the bubble, however, is not observable until such time that it condenses into stars and becomes selfluminous. In the meantime the bubble appears as a void. (The reason why we prefer to call it bubble rather than void must now be apparent.) Since the phenomena that give rise to these bubbles, namely, the ejection of quasars and their ultimate exit into the cosmic sector of the universe, are the necessary end results of the evolutionary process in the material sector, one must see the whole of space strewn with these bubbles. Their diameters, of course, reflect their lifetimes. We will show in Part II that the sizes of these bubbles predicted from the Reciprocal System do indeed fall within the observed range.
5. Growth and Decline of the Bubbles
Consider a large sphere of diffuse (unconsolidated) matter of uniform density. We note that while the inward speed due to gravitation, being proportional to the total mass, increases with radius and density, the outward speed due to the progression of the natural reference system is constant. Therefore, at the center of the sphere there is a net outward speed, and as we move away from the center this net outward speed decreases and eventually reaches zero at some radius. Let us call this radius the ‗zeropoint radius.‘Beyond this point gravitation predominates and the net speed becomes inward. The zeropoint radius varies inversely as the density of matter in the sphere. In the early stages of the bubble the density is extremely low and the zeropoint radius far outspans the actual radius. Thus the net speed everywhere in the bubble is outward. Since the bubble is already expanding at unit speed, which is the maximum that is possible in the dimension of the conventional reference system, the net positive (outward) coordinate speed has no further effect on the rate of expansion. It must be seen that the expansion of the bubble is a scaling expansion, that is, corresponding locations in the bubble at two different stages are related by the same geometrical relationship. The matter density in the bubble always remains uniform, although this uniform density steadily increases due to the everpresent inflow. As the density increases, the zeropoint radius decreases. Meanwhile the actual radius is increasing. Therefore, at some point of time these two radii become equal. That is, the net scalar speed at the bubble periphery becomes zero. We will call this the ‗point of criticality,‘ the corresponding radius the ‗critical radius‘ and the time when it happens (measured from the instant of creation of the bubble) the ‗critical time‘ of the bubble. Beyond this point, with further accumulation of matter, the zeropoint radius becomes smaller than the actual radius and the scalar direction of the net coordinate speed of the spherical shell of matter between these two radii becomes inward. This net inward speed can now act to oppose the outward progression and slow down the expansion of this
portion of the bubble, while the portion inside of the zeropoint radius continues expanding unabated at unit speed. The speed differential occurring across this shell at the bubble periphery raises the density there relatively rapidly. This rise in density acts as a positive feedback to augment the inward speed of gravitation in this shell further, and makes possible the collapsing and condensing of the matter in the peripheral regions of the bubble. In due time, it can be shown, this collapsing matter forms into the Globular Star Clusters and becomes observable. The ostensible effect is the seeming cessation of the expansion of the bubble or its retardation. As the density of matter in the bubble continues to rise, more Globular Clusters start precipitating, in successive spherical layers towards the bubble center, and we see that the observable radius of the ‗void‘ (zeropoint radius) decreases. If conditions are unaltered it takes infinite time for the matter at the center to reach the stage of star formation. But long before that, the concentration of the consolidated and aggregated matter, in the form of the Globular Clusters and groups of these clusters in the outer stretches of the bubble, rises high enough for the central mass to be brought into the ambit of their gravitational limits. (See Reference [15] for gravitational limits.) This finally terminates the existence of the bubble as its diffuse material is swallowed up by the surrounding stellar aggregates.
6. The Uniformity of the Microwave Background
The problem of reconciling the high degree of uniformity of the cosmic microwave background radiation with the observed largescale nonuniformity of the galaxy distribution does not arise in the Reciprocal System for the simple reason that the source of the background radiation is not set in the conventional threedimensional space at all. Both its absolute isotropy and lack of connection with the spatial distribution and evolution of the material aggregates result from the fact that the background radiation originates from ‗aggregates‘ in the threedimensional temporal reference frame of the cosmic sector. Larson16 explains :―... electromagnetic radiation is being emitted from an assortment of sources in the cosmic sector, just as it is here in the material sector. Radiation moves at unit speed relative to both types fixed reference systems, and can therefore be detected in both sectors regardless of where it originates. Thus we receive radiation from cosmic stars and other cosmic objects just as we do from the corresponding material aggregates. But these cosmic objects are not aggregates in space. They are randomly distributed in the spatial reference system. Their radiation is therefore received in space at a low intensity and in an isotropic distribution.‖ Of its low intensity we have had occasion to elaborate elsewhere.17 There is another point of significance that emerges from the nature of the origin of the background radiation and is noteworthy. It is not the case that this radiation starts its journey entirely at the edges of the universe and reaches us after traversing long stretches of space. Insofar as the locations in threedimensional space through which the atoms of the cosmic aggregates happen to pass are randomly distributed, the background radiation
originates ubiquitously. So long as large enough volumes of space are considered (in view of the low energy density of this radiation) the existence of absorbing media does not have any effects on its overall isotropy and uniformity. The possible attenuation by intervening dust and gas–whose occurrence is an almost certainty–is not alluded to in the astronomical literature for the simple reason that the largescale anisotropy it introduces is patently contrary to the observed fact, and thus it poses an additional problem for the current theories.
7. Summary of Part I
Recent astronomical observations reveal the occurrence of largescale voids/bubbles in space. Galaxies and their clusters appear distributed in sheetlike and streamlike structures at the peripheries of these cosmic bubbles. None of the current cosmological theories is able to accommodate these facts, leave alone predict them. It is shown that, in contradistinction, the Reciprocal System of theory not only explains their occurrence but also predicts their existence. Recent observations of the cosmic microwave background radiation reveal its absolute uniformity to an accuracy that leaves no room for the current theories to reconcile this uniformity with the observed largescale nonuniformity of the distribution of galaxies. In the case of the Reciprocal System, however, this difficulty does not arise since it shows that the cosmic background radiation originates not in the region of threedimensional space but in the region of threedimensional time.
Part II: Mathematical Aspects of the Cosmic Bubbles
In Part I of this Paper (Reciprocity, XX (2), Summer 1991, pp. 58), we have highlighted the recent observational findings in the field of astronomy leading to the discovery of largescale voids in space coupled with the distribution of galaxies as clumps at the peripheries of these voids. We called these voids bubbles. We have demonstrated there how the new facts could be readily explained in a natural way by the Reciprocal System of theory. In the present Part we attempt to develop the mathematical consequences of those concepts delineated in Part I. Since we cannot afford to repeat, Part I must be read in order to be able to follow the present treatment. For ease of referring, section numbers and reference numbers are continued from Part I. 8. Analysis of the Motion in the Bubble With the knowledge of the origin and nature of the bubbles we can now attempt to evaluate some of their properties. Let c = the speed of light = 2.99793 x 1010 cm/s G = the universal constant of gravitation = 6.673 x 108 cm³/g.s² r = radius of the bubble, cm t = time since creation of the bubble, s [sigma] = rate of mass inflow into the material sector, g/cm.³s [rho] = [sigma].t = mass density in the bubble at time t, g/cm³
M = total mass of a material aggregate, g M0 = mass of the Sun = 1.99 x 1033 g d0 = gravitational limit of a consolidated material aggregate, cm k0 = a constant = 3.5664 x 1018 cm P = the universal constant of progression = 1.044 x 1011 cm/s² v = speed, cm/s a = acceleration = v (dv/dr), cm/s² We note from Reference [15] the following: d0 = k0 (M/M0)½ P = G.M/d0² = G.M0/k02 <1> <2>
We will first evaluate the expressions for the speed due to progression and the speed due to gravitation in the bubble. In the beginning stages, (see Section 5), the net speed in the entire mass is outward and we have to consider the expressions relevant to motion in equivalent space. Only when gravitation balances (or predominates) progression does the motion come back into the space of the conventional threedimensional reference frame. 8.1 Speed due to Progression In the conventional reference system ap = vp (dvp/dr) = P, or vp = (2.P.r) ½ <3> On the basis of the explanation given in Reference [15] the corresponding speed in equivalent space is given by vp,e/v0 = (vp/v0)²/2 where v0, the zeropoint speed, is given by v0 = (2.G.M/d0) ½ = (2.P.d0) ½ Therefore we get vp,e = [alpha] (r/[rho])¼ where [alpha] = (P/2.k0) ½ (0.75 M0/[pi])¼ = 1.7861 x 107 cgs unit 8.2 Speed due to Gravitation In the conventional reference system, considering a location at the periphery of the bubble ag = vg (dvg/dr) = 4.[pi].G.[rho].r/3, or vg = (4.[pi].G.[rho]/3) ½ r The corresponding speed in equivalent space is given by <7> <6> <5> <4>
vg,e/v0 = (vg/v0)²/2. Adopting v0 from Eq. <4> we get vg,e = ß [rho]¾ r5/4 where ß = [pi] (2.G.k0/9) ½ (0.75/M0 [pi])¼ = 2.391 x 103 cgs unit 8.3 Net Speed In the conventional reference system, the net speed is (using Eqs. <3> and <7>) vn = vp  vg = (2.P.r) ½  (4.[pi].G.[rho]/3) ½ r and in equivalent space (using Eqs. <5> and <8>) vn,e = vp,e  vg,e = ([alpha]  ß.[rho].r) (r/[rho]) ¼ 8.4 ZeroPoint Radius We have called the radius of a uniform spherical mass at whose periphery the net speed becomes zero the zeropoint radius, rz. Equating Eq. <11> to zero and using Eqs. <6> and <9>, we obtain [rho].rz = [alpha]/ß = (3.P)/(2.[pi].G) = 7.47 x 105 g/cm2 <12> This relationship gives, for any given value of mass density, the corresponding radius where the net speed becomes zero. 8.5 Advent of Criticality In Section 5 we have set forth that the mass of the expanding bubble reaches a critical state when its actual radius equals the zeropoint radius. We have called this radius the critical radius rcr and the corresponding age of the bubble the critical time tcr. Substituting in Eq. <12> [rho] = [sigma].tcr and rz = rcr , and noting that rcr = c.tcr we get tcr = ([alpha]/(ß.c.[sigma]))½ seconds <14> Now if the rate of mass inflow, [sigma], could be evaluated, one obtains the time it requires for the bubble to reach criticality and the corresponding size of the bubble. We, therefore, proceed as follows. 8.6 The Universal Constant of Materialization We may call [sigma] the universal constant of materialization, like we call G and P respectively the corresponding universal constants. Noting that r = c.t and [rho] = [sigma].t we rewrite Eq. <11> vn,e = ([alpha]  ß.[sigma].c.t²)(c/[sigma])¼ <15> At the moment of the quasar exit (that is, the start of the bubble expansion), we take t = 0. Therefore, at this moment, vn,e reduces to <13> <10> <11> <9> <8>
vn,e,0 = [alpha] (c/[sigma])¼
<16>
This is an outward speed and can be equated to the speed that is coming in, vi, with the inflowing matter from the cosmic sector, wherein gravitation acts inward in time (equivalent to outward in space). It is not yet attenuated by gravitation in space (as could be seen from ß.[sigma].c.t² = 0). The intersector transition of matter takes place on individual mass unit basis. Normally, the speed effective on unit mass basis is the unit speed c. However, as elaborated in Reference [15], the scalar rotation of atoms that is the origin of gravitation is distributed over 156.444 directions (degrees of freedom) in the time region (the region inside unit space) and 8 directions in the timespace region (the region of motion in threedimensional space). In the corresponding situation of the cosmic atom, the cosmic gravitation gets distributed over 156.444 directions in the space region (the region inside unit time) and 8 directions in the spacetime region (the region of motion in threedimensional time). Consequently, the incoming speed, vi , is given by vi = c/(156.444 * 8) <17> remembering that the contact between motion in space and motion in time is onedimensional. Equating Eqs. <16> and <17> we arrive at the important value [sigma] = 9.2679 x 1047 g/cm³ s <18>
9. The Bubble Parameters
We can calculate the critical time by Eq. <14>, the corresponding critical density by [rho]cr = [sigma].tcr , and the total mass of the bubble at criticality: tcr = 1.643 x 108 years rcr = 1.643 x 108 lightyears [rho]cr = 4.8055 x 1031 g/cm³ Mcr = 3.7994 x 1015 Solarmasses We will examine these results one by one to see if they tally with the observations. 9.1 Matter Density All the above values can be seen to be within the range of corresponding actual observed values. Current estimates of the density (in g/cm³) of matter are as follows18: Interstellar space 1024 Space near edge of galaxy 1028 Intergalactic space 1031 The calculated critical density is slightly higher than the estimated density in intergalactic space but very near it. 9.2 Globular Clusters As the net speed at the bubble periphery changes its scalar direction from outward to inward (on reaching criticality), it initiates the collapse of a large number of individual masses of diffuse matter all around the spherical boundary of the bubble. Each of these masses, as it collapses, further splits into a number of aggregates of stellar size,
eventually resulting in a Globular Cluster. We will not here enter into detailed discussion of the mechanics of the formation of the Globular Clusters for want of space. The interested reader may refer to Larson.13 At this juncture we would merely want to make an estimation of the collapse time of these Globular Clusters. Let us consider the condition at the bubble periphery. There the net speed is given by Eq. <10>. Letting [rho] = [sigma].t, r = c.t (strictly r < c.t since gravitation now predominates: but its effect is negligible in the initial stages of the postcritical phase), and x the radius of a protoGlobular Cluster of mass Mg, we have dx/dt = vn = (2.P.c.t)½  (4.[pi].G.[sigma].c².t³/3) ½ xg = [Mg/(4.[pi].[rho]cr/3)]1/3 <19> <20> The equation can now be integrated between the limits x = xg to 0 and t = tcr to tg, where The following Table gives the calculated collapse time as a function of the protoGlobular Cluster mass. Mg (Solarmasses) Collapse Time (years) 10³ 0.41 x 108 104 0.59 x 108 105 0.85 x 108 106 1.22 x 108 The relationship between the collapse time and Mg obtained by regression is Collapse Time = 0.138 x 108 (Mg)0.158 <21>
8
and indicates that a star of, say, one Solarmass would condense in 0.138 x 10 years. Thus the individual stars form well before the Globular Cluster as a whole arrives at its final stage of equilibrium. In passing, we would like to remark that while it is possible for the Globular Cluster to form from a matter density of about 5 x 1031 g/cm³ under the gravitational assistance of the bubble as a whole, simple calculation from Eq. <12> shows that, left to itself, it requires a density of nearly 1026 g/cm³ to accomplish the same result. 9.3 The Bubble Size The above calculations indicate that it takes nearly 0.4 to 0.6 x 108 years for the Globular Clusters to form and become observable after the bubble attains criticality. During this period the original bubble continues to expand, though not at the speed of light, at a slightly slower rate. Adding, therefore, a distance of 0.4 x 108 lightyears to the radius at criticality we find that the bubble diameter at this juncture works out to be 2 (1.643 x 108 + 0.4 x 108) = 4.1 x 108 lightyears. It must be noted that this result gives the maximum possible size. Beyond this stage the observed size actually decreases because (i) gravitation retards/nullifies the expansion and (ii) continued formation of Globular Clusters and dwarf galaxies shifts the spherical boundary between the visible and the dark matter ever inward, toward the bubble centre.
From Eq. <12> we can see that the apparent void radius (equal to the zeropoint radius) varies with time as r = rcr .tcr/t <22> Since the number of clusters grows as time passes, their combined gravitational effect draws up the matter at the bubble core and simultaneously they close in on it. A preliminary calculation on the basis of the gravitational limit of the surrounding group of clusters indicates that the last stage of the bubble, before it rapidly dissipates, will occur at a bubble diameter of about 84 million lightyears. The observed bubble sizes reported in the literature range from 60 to 400 million lightyears. Broadhurst's survey,7 though covering only two narrow regions but extending to depths of 2000 Mpc, puts it at 417 million lihgtyears (see Section 1). Thus the results of calculations made on the basis of the Reciprocal System of theory are entirely in agreement with the facts. 9.4 Total Mass The bubble mass at criticality has been calculated to be 3.8 x 1015 Solarmasses. But as the formation of the Globular Clusters and other galaxies continues in the postcritical stage, the incessant inflow of matter from the cosmic sector adds to the total mass. When the bubble eventually reaches the supercluster stage its mass–that is, the mass of that portion of the original bubble that condenses into groups of clusters and clusters of stars–would be well within the 1016 Solarmass range of the current estimates.
10. Computer Simulations
B.B. Mandelbrot,19 investigating fractal shapes in nature, has studied the distribution of galaxies and clusters of galaxies in threedimensional space. By postulating the existence of intergalactic voids he tried to evolve models of clustering. His findings are very interesting and pertinent. He starts with a completely filled space and keeps on removing spherical volumes of matter. Both the size of the spherical hole and the location of its centre are chosen randomly. The size of the hole is treated as a Poisson random variable with a distribution N (>v) [proportional] 1/v <23> which reads as the number of holes with volume greater than v is inversely proportional to v. The model is simulated on computer. His results–both the covariance between two points in space and the covariance between two directions in the sky–indicate a very good fit of data. The graphics output shows the views of the material remained after removing the spherical chunks and bear an amazing resemblance to the actual sky maps. 10.1 Unforced Clusters A rather significant and unforeseen result of Mandelbrot‗s model above is that the distribution of the remaining points shows an apparent hierarchical structure. Mandelbrot
exclaims: "Each point stands for a whole minicluster ... In addition ... the miniclusters are themselves clustered. They exhibit such clearcut hierarchical levels that it is hard to believe that the model involves no explicit hierarchy, only a builtin selfsimilarity."20 Or again, "Increasing clustering is not provoked by the concentration of all points around a few of them but by the disappearance of most points, leading to an increasing number of apparent hierarchical levels."21 Hence he refers to them as ‗unforced clusters.‘ His finding is directly in line with the conclusions which Larson obtains from the Reciprocal System. ―... the largest units in which gravitation is effective toward consolidation of its components are the groups of galaxies. These groups begin separating immediately, but until the outward movement produces a clearcut separation, their identity as distinct individuals is not apparent to observation. Here, then, is the explanation of the large ―clusters‖ and ―superclusters‖ of galaxies. These are not structural units in the same sense as stars or galaxies, or the groups of galaxies that we have been discussing.‖22 (Emphasis added.) These are default clusters with apparent hierarchical structure brought into relief by the randomly generated bubbles. 10.2 Difficulties with Mandelbrot‘s Model The above model suffers from two shortcomings, and Mandelbrot has to introduce two ad hoc assumptions to make it successful. These concern the hole size distribution assumed by him (Eq. <23>). Firstly, while the model shows reasonable verisimilitude when limited portions of sky are considered, the overall sky maps are completely wrong in that they include voids as immense as onetenth of the sky or more. This defect could be traced to the unrealistically large hole sizes allowed by the hyperbolic distribution function N (>v) [proportional] 1/v and could be eliminated by imposing an ‗upper cutoff,‘ vmax , on the hole size. Secondly, the unrealistically large number of smallsized holes allowed by this hyperbolic distribution leaves no portion of the sky not covered by the holes. In fact, Mandelbrot imposes the constraint that P (>v) = 1, for v < 1 <24> (where P stands for probability) to save the model. It would, therefore, be interesting to see what the Reciprocal System has to offer in this context. 10.3 Distribution of the Hole Size According to the Reciprocal System According to the Reciprocal System the largescale universe is in a steady state. That is, both the rate of inflow of matter from the cosmic sector and the rate of final quasar transitions to the cosmic sector are uniform in time (as well as in space) and equal each other. Therefore, for a given volume of space, the number of bubbles created per unit time, which is the number of quasars exiting per unit time, is given by dN/dt = b <25> where b is a constant directly calculable from [sigma] and the average mass of a quasar. Assuming an average quasar mass of 109 Solarmasses, b works out to be 1.37 x 1015 per second per cubic megaparsec of space.
For 0 <= t <= tcr : We have seen that till criticality the radius is given by the relationship r = c.t. Differentiating this we get dt/dr = 1/c , and finally dN/dr = (dN/dt)(dt/dr) = b/c Integrating we have N1 (>r) = b (rcr  r)/c <27> where N1 is the number of bubbles of radii larger than a specified radius r. It may be seen that N1 is the contribution to the bubble population from the precritical phase of the bubble evolution. For t >= tcr : Beyond the critical point, we have seen that the bubble size decreases according to Eq. <22>. We obtain on differentiating it dt/dr =  rcr . tcr/r² =  rcr²/c.r² since rcr = c.tcr by Eq. <13>. Finally dN/dr = (dN/dt)(dt/dr) =  b.rcr²/c.r2 On integrating N2 (>r) = b ((rcr²/r)  rcr)/c <29> where, again, N2 is the number of bubbles of radii larger than r. N2 is the contribution to the bubble population from the postcritical phase. We have shown in Section 9.3 that in the postcritical phase there is lower cutoff to the bubble size due to its quick dissipation. Let this lower cutoff radius be r0. On adding N1 and N2 from Eqs. <27> and <29> respectively we get the following total distribution. For 0 <= r <= r0 : N (>r) = b ((rcr²/r0)  r)/c For r0 <= r <= rcr : N (>r) = b ((rcr²/r)  r)/c <31> We take the onedimensional analogue of Mandelbrot‗s Eq. <23> for the sake of comparison N (>r) = C‘/r <32> where C‘ is a constant. It can readily be seen that the difficulty of unrealistically large number of smallsized holes that occurs in Mandelbrot does not arise here because N (>0) is not infinite but a finite constant (see Eq. <30>). Similarly the difficulty of occurrence of unrealistically largesized holes does not arise either. This is because there is a maximum possible size, rcr ; and this comes out as a natural consequence of the development of the theory in the case of the Reciprocal System–not as an arbitrary constraint imposed on the model to make it conform to the reality. <30> <28> <26>
11. Summary
The astronomical observations of the recent decade have brought to light the largescale distribution of galaxies in the universe and the near perfect uniformity of the cosmic microwave background to an extent that has not been possible earlier. An unexpected fact that has come to be established is the ubiquitous occurrence of spherical voids of gigantic proportions throughout space. Current theories are nonplussed. Larson has shown that galaxies, on reaching an age limit, explosively eject fragments of their cores, imparting to them ultra high speeds. These fragments are quasars. When gravitation is attenuated by distance (time) the net speed of quasars reaches two units, the limit of the material sector. Then gravitation–which always acts inward–ceases to act in space and starts operating in time. This leaves the outward progression of space unchecked and all the constituent matter of the quasar, which hitherto stayed put, is dispersed in all directions in space at the speed of the progression. Thus, centred at the location of the original quasar, a spherical void starts growing. Since the ejection of quasars and their exit are inevitable stages in the evolution of material aggregates these voids ought to be a universal phenomenon. Preliminary calculations demonstrate that their observed sizes and other parameters are in consonance with the theoretical predictions. All these latest observational findings that the current theories are at a loss to account for, are logically explained by the Reciprocal System starting from the foundation of its Fundamental Postulates. This Paper, thus, demonstrates once again the cogency and power of the Reciprocal System as a general physical theory.
References
1. Stephan A. Gregory and Laird A. Thompson, ―Superclusters and Voids in the Distribution of Galaxies,‖ Scientific American, 246 (3), March 1982, p. 88 2. A. S. Szalay and Y. B. Zel‗dovitch, ―The Largescale Structure of the Universe,‖ Scientific American, 249 (4), October 1983, p. 56 3. Science and the Citizen section, ―Cosmic Cartography,‖ Scientific American, 254 (3), March 1986, p. 49 4. Margaret J. Geller and John P. Huchra, Science, 246, 1989, p. 897 5. A. Dressler and S. M. Faber, Astrophysics J. Letters, 354, 1990, L. 45 6. Bertram Schwarzschild, ―Gigantic Structures Challenge Standard View of Cosmic Evolution,‖ Physics Today, 43 (6), June 1990, p. 20 7. Thomas J. Broadhurst et al., Nature, 343, 1990, p. 726 8. John Horgan, ―Universal Truths,‖ Vigyan, October 1990, p. 88
9. Corey S. Powell, "Up Against the Wall," Scientific American, 262 (2), February 1990, p. 12 10. Anthony Readhead et al., Astrophysics J., 346, 1989, p. 566 11. Dewey B. Larson, Nothing but Motion, North Pacific Pub., Portland, Oregon, U.S.A., 1979 12. Dewey B. Larson, The Neglected Facts of Science, North Pacific Pub., Portland, Oregon, U.S.A., 1982 13. Dewey B. Larson, The Universe of Motion, North Pacific Pub., Portland, Oregon, U.S.A., 1984 14. Dewey B. Larson, The Neglected Facts of Science, op. cit., pp. 112113 15. K. V. K. Nehru, ―The Gravitational Limit and the Hubble‗s Law,‖ Reciprocity, XVI (2), Winter 198788, pp. 1116 16. Dewey B. Larson, The Neglected Facts of Science, op. cit., p.73 17. K. V. K. Nehru, ―The Cosmic Background Radiation: Origin and Temperature,‖ Reciprocity, XIX (4), Winter 199091, p. 20 and XX (1), Spring 1991, pp. 14 18. William K. Hartmann, Astronomy: the Cosmic Journey, Wadsworth Pub. Co., U.S.A., 1978, p. 309 19. Benoit B. Mandelbrot, The Fractal Geometry of Nature, W.H.Freeman & Co., U.S.A., 1983 20. Ibid., p. 294 21. Ibid., p. 298 22. Dewey B. Larson, The Universe of Motion, op. cit., p. 2
Special Thanks to the folks who set up the web site that made this document possible!
http://www.reciprocalsystem.com/rs/links.htm