The theory of relativity represents fields of force as structural properties of space-time, and a field of force is the arena in which the presence of energy is detectable. Energy manifests itself in the physical world as radiation, and Einstein established its fundamental identity with mass.1 This has since been demonstrated experimentally by the annihilation of elementary particles and their conversion into y-rays and the reverse process of conversion of y-rays into pairs of electrons and positrons ('pair production') as observed by Blackett and Occhialini. It is hardly surprising, therefore, that both matter and energy should appear to us in the same phenomenal forms, as particles and as waves. The universal interconnectedness of things is here again exemplified. Space-time structure, in the form of curvature of differing degrees, appears as field, and field, by what Teilhard would call 'complexification', organizes itself into material particles. The contemporary theory of matter, notwithstanding disputes and controversies still current about the concepts involved, unquestionably represents the atom as a complicated organization of fields of force describable without misrepresentation as an energy complex. This being so, an unbroken continuity between space-time, field, energy and matter is established, as a series of forms or manifestations of the real, each a more complex elaboration of its predecessor in the series. The progression is effected, to borrow again from Teilhard, by a process of self-enfoldment (enroulement sur soi-meme) of the prior form: curvature of space gives field, the structure or complexity of the field (as we are about to find) takes the form of waves (or radiation), further complication of these, by superposition, produces wave-packets or particles, and the intricate organization of particles into a single energy system constitutes the atom.
The theory of relativity represents fields of force as structural properties of space-time, and a field of force is the arena in which the presence of energy is detectable. Energy manifests itself in the physical world as radiation, and Einstein established its fundamental identity with mass.1 This has since been demonstrated experimentally by the annihilation of elementary particles and their conversion into y-rays and the reverse process of conversion of y-rays into pairs of electrons and positrons ('pair production') as observed by Blackett and Occhialini. It is hardly surprising, therefore, that both matter and energy should appear to us in the same phenomenal forms, as particles and as waves. The universal interconnectedness of things is here again exemplified. Space-time structure, in the form of curvature of differing degrees, appears as field, and field, by what Teilhard would call 'complexification', organizes itself into material particles. The contemporary theory of matter, notwithstanding disputes and controversies still current about the concepts involved, unquestionably represents the atom as a complicated organization of fields of force describable without misrepresentation as an energy complex. This being so, an unbroken continuity between space-time, field, energy and matter is established, as a series of forms or manifestations of the real, each a more complex elaboration of its predecessor in the series. The progression is effected, to borrow again from Teilhard, by a process of self-enfoldment (enroulement sur soi-meme) of the prior form: curvature of space gives field, the structure or complexity of the field (as we are about to find) takes the form of waves (or radiation), further complication of these, by superposition, produces wave-packets or particles, and the intricate organization of particles into a single energy system constitutes the atom.
THE NATURALISTIC APPROACH TO NATURAL SCIENCE THROUGH MOTION AND MATTER THE most fundamental questions which are raised in modern science are concerned with matter and energy. which are said to be different aspects of the same reality. This reality is described in terms of particles and waves, and there is good experimental evidence for both. Particles can be recognized by their tracks in a photographic emulsion or in a cloud chamber, and they can be recorded with a Geiger counter. Diffraction and interference phenomena serve for the study of the continuous field or wave character of matter, which is manifested not only by light but also by electrons, neutrons and protons. Thus particles appear as waves and waves as particles: the two seem inseparable. Yet the difficulty of combining these two aspects of things in a unified picture is so great that it has been called the main stumbling block which prevents the formation of a stable and certain concept of matter. It has been suggested that the particles may be more or less temporary entities within the wave field whose form and behavior are determined by the laws of the waves themselves, which in certain cases permit waves to appear as if they were permanent substantial beings. Or perhaps the wa.ve field is merely a device for computing the probability of finding a particle of given properties at a given position. At any rate most theoreticians will probably admit that the individual particle is not a well-defined and permanent entity whose identity or sameness can be detected experimentally. In a word, the modern analysis of matter leaves us uncertain whether the world is a system o£ waves or particles or both. The only thing which seems certain is that there are no welldefined and permanent entities. This picture of physical reality may at first seem very dis219 WILLIAM H. KANE concerting and quite opposed to ordinary ways of thinking. For reassurance we may take hasty refuge in the common view that nothing is certain in science, nothing finaL New data will surely be uncovered, and new principles will be formulated. After all, science gives us only a tentative and partial view which is always subject to revision and revaluation. But the hypotheses of science are not opposed to previous valid findings. On the contrary, agreement with the data of experience is what validates a scientific principle. When new data exceed the limits of former principles, new hypotheses must be formulated which include as special cases the facts and correlations already established. The primary datum of our sensory experience is the fact of change in the world around us and in us. When we realize that we ourselves were born and will die; that we came into being and will cease to be in this world at least; that not only organisms of all kinds but also the chemical compounds are generated and corrupted, why is it surprising to be told by modern scientists that even the chemical atoms and the elementary particles of which they are composed are not permanent entities but transitory things? Perhaps it is because we had become accustomed to think of the atoms as indestructible building blocks out of which all bodies are made. Perhaps there is also a deeper reason for wonder. If everything is changing, how can there be anything even relatively permanent in the world? ·what are air and water, rocks and trees, animals and men? How can there even be change? Can there be a wave without something waving? How can anything come to be and cease to be in this world? To these questions there is no certain answer in modern science. Yet these are the very questions which the primary data of experience raise in our minds. If we desire a fundamental understanding of natural things we must account for change. We must explain in terms of its own proper principles what a changeable thing is and how it comes into being and ceases to be. It is not customary in modern science to look for basic prin- THE NATURALISTIC APPROACH TO NATURAL SCIENCE 221 ciples. Often we are told by philosophers of science and scientific methodology...
More than a hundred years ago, a series of discoveries, especially in physics, began to subtly (or maybe not) reveal some mysterious properties of matter, properties that in some fashion or other were not acceptable to our established way of perceiving Reality. Strangely enough, these properties were not taken seriously by science because they pointed to a reality that seemed too fantastical to be true, a reality that seemed to have no substance or permanence. These so called mysterious properties matter, for lack of a better word, turn out to be fundamentally related to the following discoveries: The ambiguous wave-particle duality. As in de Broglie matter-waves and the Compton properties of particles. The ubiquitous appearance of the cycle constant (τ=2π=C⁄r) in physical mathematical relations. The general applicability of the Fourier Transform to represent/model physical motion and other natural processes. The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle and its mysterious constraint between conjugate variables, momentum and position for example. Quantum Mechanics and its collapse of the wavefunction. The surprising mass-energy equivalence. As in Einstein’s E=mc^2. The perplexing isotropy of the speed of light. The mind boggling time dilation and length contraction of Einstein’s Special Relativity (SR). The contradictory fabric of SR/GR’s spacetime and its assignment of properties to the void. The surprisingly discrete nature of atomic properties. As in Quantum Mechanics (QM). Needless to say, no matter what science has tried in order to fit the above discoveries into our physical world, their implications continue to elude an intuitively acceptable explanation in material terms. This monograph, although not necessarily in chronological order, is a recapitulation of previous monographs written by the author in an attempt at a single-source theoretical explanation/clarification for the above mentioned list of “mysterious” properties of matter, in terms of one fundamental set of properties, the motional geometry of matter.
Up to this point, our study of quantum mechanics has concerned itself with the behaviour of particles that inhabit a Galilean spacetime. For many purposes, in atomic, molecular and condensed matter physics, this theory is quite adequate. We saw in earlier chapters, however, that our actual spacetime has a structure which is much closer to that of the Minkowski spacetime of special relativity and that more general structures must be considered when gravitational phenomena are signicant. From a purely theoretical point of view, it is therefore important to formulate quantum theory in a way which is consistent with these more general spacetimes. The benets of constructing a relativistic quantum theory actually go far beyond the aesthetic satisfaction of making our geometrical and quantum-mechanical reasoning compatible. For one thing, we shall discover that the relativistic theory provides a deeper understanding of spin and the distinction between fermions and bosons, which in the non-relativistic theory appear simply as facts of life that we must strive to accommodate. Also, of course, there are many situations in which relativistic eects become observable, for which non-relativistic theory provides no explanation. The most obvious are high-energy scattering experiments, in which particles acquire kinetic energies comparable with or greater than their rest energies mc2, and the correct 4-momentum (3.33) must be used. There are, however, more subtle eects, such as the spin-orbit coupling that is essential for interpreting atomic spectra, which are also of relativistic origin.
A new, very different physical model of the universe is proposed. Its virtues include unifying relativity and quantum mechanics, and particles with de Broglie waves. It also appears to provide a truly unified physical basis for electromagnetic, gravitational and nuclear forces. The basic system is a four-dimensional Euclidean space, containing an array of nonlinear "flow" waves. These repeat in one dimension, called [phi]. As in Newtonian mechanics, time is treated as an additional, unidirectional parameter describing the evolution of the system. Nevertheless, this wave system is shown be inherently relativistic. Further self-organizing patterns arise within the overall wave structure. Called "wavicles," these have intrinsic quantized fields, "spin," and rest energy, and represent elementary particles. Relativistic expressions are derived for particle behavior in scalar, vector and gravitational potentials. Proper representations of these potentials, based on the wave fields and associated [phi] flows of wavicles, are also obtained. As in the causal quantum mechanics of de Broglie and Bohm, wavicles exist continuously and follow definite, stochastic trajectories. Although experimentally equivalent to Einstein's special relativity, this theory differs fundamentally from his general relativity and the associated Big Bang model. According to Linde, the latter predict a large-scale space-time curvature roughly 60 orders of magnitude greater than observed values. Here a flat large-scale geometry is predicted, in agreement with the observed distribution of galaxies. This theory is also consistent with recent observations pertaining to the age of the universe.
The X rays Diffraction Experiment covers: theory, interaction of photons with the matter, sources of x rays, x rays tube, radioactivity, x rays detector, x rays diffraction process, crystals, miller indices and Bravais lattices, Bragg reflection on crystal, symmetry elements, point group of symmetry, fourteen bravais lattices, crystalline systems bravais, 32 crystalline punctual groups, stereogram of the 32 crystalline punctual groups, brillouin zone and the cubic system lattice, real space (direct lattices) and the reciprocal space (reciprocal lattices), the Laue experiment of x rays diffraction on crystal, experimental set up, scintillators and photomultipliers.Besides, it is researched the Electron Diffraction and the Diffraction and Interference for the electron by using the Fourier Approach and Wave Properties, Diffraction: Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle, Uncertainty Principle of Heisenberg by applying wave properties, Interference: Double Slit Experiment, The Copenhagen Interpretation, Pilot wave interpretation and why the electron doesn´t radiate energy as a particle.For other hand, Albert Einstein wrote in a research article: "Does the inertia of a body depend on its energy content?" (Ist die Trägheit eines Körpers von seimen Energienhalt abhängig?):"If a body emits energy E in the form of radiation, its mass decreases by E/c 2 ".The fact that the energy that leaves from the body is converted into radiation energy makes no difference, so the more general conclusion is reached that the mass of a body is a measure of the content of its energy...It is not impossible that with bodies whose content of energy is highly variable (for example radio salts) the theory can be successfully tested.If the theory corresponds to the fact, radiation conducts inertia between the bodies that emit and absorb it 1 ".This is true for any type of radiation emitted (gravitational or electromagnetic energy) which produces a decrease in the mass of the body.Respect to the gravitational energy emission, it is demonstrated by theory, experiment and result the discovery formula which describe exactly the variant mass of a particle which emits gravitational energy which was demonstrated by myself at the article: The Fundament of the Mass and Effects of the Gravitation on a Particle and Light in the mass, time, distance, velocity, frequency, wavelength: Variant Mass for a Particle which emits Gravitational Energy for a particle orbiting a large Planet or Sun and for a Binary Star and Variant Frequency for the Light passing close a Gravitational Field from a Massive Object (Sun).The results of the mass formula are of great relevance for Gravitational Interactions.It is in accordance with the classic result for the emission of the total gravitational energy (bond total energy) for a particle orbiting a large Planet or Sun and for a Binary Star.At the atom, the electron only radiates this energy when it jumps from one orbit to another orbit at the atom.It is in accordance with the experimental results from the spectral lines of the atom.The difference is that in a gravitational field the particle or a planet around the sun can take any position at the space and any radius.But, the electron at the atom only can take restricted positions which are explained by quantum mechanics, and the electrons don´t emit radiation when they orbit around the nucleus.At this article, it is demonstrated the development formula for the variant mass of the electron at the atom which describe exactly the variant mass of the electron (charged particle) at the atom which emits electromagnetic energy from one stationary level to other.The results of the formula are compared with the ionization energy emission for the electron at the atom and the bound energy for the diatomic molecules.The results are in agreement with high accuracy.Besides, Maxwell's theory shows that electromagnetic waves are radiated whenever charges accelerate as for example for the electrón.Then, this electromagnetic radiation (photons) produces a decrease in the mass of the electron which is given by the formula of the Variant Mass for an Accelerated Charged Particle which was demonstrated by me at this research.Therefore, an additional objective of this article is to demonstrate by theory, calculations and results the discovered formula which describe exactly the variant mass of an accelerated charged particle.This charged particle emits electromagnetic radiation which is called the Maxwell Radiation.Also, the article analyzes and establishes about the effects of the variant mass on the particle.In addition, the formula is tested with the electromagnetic radiation emitted for an electron when leaves from the atom.Finally, it is obtained the formula for the power energy emitted for an Accelerated Charged Particle.
It has become ever more clear over the past 70 years that reality is best described by a theory that no one fully understands and which cannot be applied to most everyday phenomena. Quantum theory has been subjected to many stringent tests and all of its predictions, however strange, have always been borne out. Originally developed to account for why atoms do not collapse and why they radiate and absorb energy in discrete amounts (quanta), it has now gone far beyond these rather simple beginnings. It is essentially a mathematical theory, so trying to describe it in words is analogous to transforming a picture into a poem. Inaccuracies, distortions and over-simplifications inevitably creep in. Nevertheless, one can convey the essence of the picture, and that is what is attempted here. Some grasp of what the material world is really like, and of the unfamiliar ways in which it can behave, is probably necessary to reaching an understanding of awareness and is certainly needed to comprehend the experimental evidence set out in Chapter 5.